Glass 
Book 



/ 

/ 



JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 

IN 



Historical and Political Sciei 

HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor. 



History is Past Politics and Politics are Present History— Freeman 



THIRTEENTH SERIES 
III-IV 

THE EARLY RELATIO] 




BETWEEN 



MARYLAND AND VIRGII 

By JOHN H. LATAN13, A. B. 
IS HISTORY PAST POLITICS? 

By The Editor 



BALTIMORE 

The Johns Hopkins Press 
published monthly 
march and april, 1895 



iS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 

IN 

rical and Political Science. 

Herbert B. Adams, Editor. 

r the University nor the Editor assumes responsibility for the views of contributors. 

<IRST SERIES. — Local Institutions.— 1883.— $4.00. 

adduction to American Institutional History. By Edward A. Freeman. 25 cents. 
Germanic Origin of New England Towns. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. 
/real Government in Illinois. By Albert Shaw.— Local Government in Pennsyl- 
nia. By E. R. L. Gould. 30 cents. 
..axon Tithingmen in America. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. 

loca\ Government in Michigan, and the Northwest. By E. W. Bemis. 25 cents. 
Parish Institutions of Maryland. By Edward Ingle. 40 cents. 
Old Maryland Manors. By John Hemsley Johnson. 30 cents. 
Norman Constables in America. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. 
'.. Village Communities of Cape Ann and Salem. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. 
The Genesis of a New England State (Connecticut). By Alexander Johnston. 
50 cents. 

t-ocal Government and Free Schools in South Carolina. By B. J. Ramage. 40 cents. 

AD SERIES.— Institutions and Economics.— 1884.— § 4.00. 

ds of Historical Study. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. 

tst and the Present of Political Economy. By R. T. Ely. 35 cents. 

Adams, The Man of the Town Meeting. By James K. Hosmer. 35 cents. 
ation in the United States. By Henry Carter Adams. 50 cents. 
utional Beginnings in a Western State. By Jesse Macy. 25 cents. 
ndian Money as a Factor in New England Civilization. By William B. 
den. 50 cents. 

and County Government in the English Colonies of North America. By 

ard Channing. 50 cents. 

imentary Society among Boys. By J. Hemsley Johnson. 50 cents. 
nd Laws of Mining Districts. By C. H. Shinn. 50 cents. 

THIRD SERIES —Maryland, Virginia and Washington.— 
1885.— $4.00, 

ind's Influence upon Land Cessions to the United States. By H, B. Adams. 

nts. 

»rginia Local Institutions :— The Land System; Hundred; Parish; County; 
A-n. By E. Ingle. 75 cents. 
,erjt American Socialism. By Richard T. Ely. 50 cents. 
Vll.< Maryland Local Institutions :— The Land System; Hundred; County; 
'own. By Lewis W. Wilhelm. $1.00. 

The Influence of the Proprietors in Founding the State of New Jersey. By 

asTiN Scott. 25 cents. 

\m>srican Constitutions; The Relations of the Three Departments as Adjusted 
' a Century. By Horack Davis. 50 cents. 
. T|ne City of Washington. By J. A. Porter. 50 cents. 

^ FOURTH SERIES. — Municipal Government and 
Land Tenure.— 1880.— $3.50. 

Village Communities on the Hudson River. By I. Elting. 50 cents. 

Government in Rhode Island. By W. E. Foster.-— The Narragansett 
■""ward Channing. 50 cents. 

By William P. Holcomb. 50 cents. 

and Pclitical History of the Individual States. 



III-IV 

THE EARLY RELATIONS 

BETWEEN 

Maryland and Virginia 



JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 



HlSTOEICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE 
HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor. 



History is Past Politics and Politics are Present History — Freeman. 



THIRTEENTH SERIES 
III-IV 



THE EARLY RELATIONS 



MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA 




By JOHN H. LATANE, A. B. 

IS HISTORY PAST POLITICS? 



By The Editor 



BALTIMORE 

The Johns Hopkins Press 
published monthly 

MARCH AND APRIL, 1895 



IN 



BETWEEN 





F/S4- 



Copyright, 1895, by The Johns Hopkins Press. 



JOHN MURPHY & CO., PRINTERS, 
BALTIMORE. 



* 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE. 



Introduction 7 

I. Opposition to Lord Baltimore's Charter and the Dis- 
pute over Kent Island., 8 

II. The Rise op the Puritans in Virginia and their Ex- 
pulsion under Governor Berkeley 31 

III. Puritan Supremacy in Virginia and Maryland 49 

Bibliography 65 



Is History Past Politics? By the Editor. 



67 



THE EARLY RELATIONS BETWEEN MARY- 
LAND AND VIRGINIA. 



Intboduction. 

The purpose of this paper is to give an account of the re- 
lations between Virginia and Maryland from the settlement 
of the latter colony to the agreement between Lord Baltimore 
and the agents of Virginia in November, 1657, when Lord 
Baltimore was permitted to assume control of the government 
of his province, which had been taken out of his hands five 
years before by the commissioners of Parliament and since 
that time held by the Puritans. 

The unfriendly relations, which existed between Maryland 
and Virginia for a long period and which have been perpetu- 
ated in a local way in the boundary disputes of our own times, 
were the historic outcome of the loose and careless way in 
which the English territory in the New World was granted 
out by the King, and the want of geographical knowledge on 
the part of those who had jurisdiction over matters involved 
in the first controversies. The original grant to the Virginia 
Company included a large part of the present area of the 
United States. The territory subsequently granted to Lord 
Baltimore was, of course, carved out of this original grant to 
the Virginia Company. While the Virginians strenuously 
opposed the Maryland charter, it is not likely that any serious 
difficulty would have arisen, had it not been for Claiborne's 
settlement on Kent Island. His case was not decided in 

7 



8 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [130 

England until 1638, six years after the charter of Maryland 
was granted to Cecilius Calvert. Meanwhile, in every act 
of resistance to the Proprietary of Maryland, Claiborne was 
backed by the strongest expressions of encouragement and 
approval from the King and from the Council of Virginia. 

A few years later the relations between the two colonies 
were further complicated by the expulsion of a large number 
of Puritans from Virginia and their settlement in Maryland. 
During the Protectorate, when the hand of Lord Baltimore 
was powerless, these Puritans quarreled with the Catholics and 
a state of civil war for some time prevailed. Claiborne was in 
no way responsible for this state of affairs, and although he 
was one of the commissioners appointed by Parliament for 
the reduction of the colonies to the authority of the Common- 
wealth of England, he seems to have had very little to do with 
Maryland at this period. 

As the Puritan element in the early history of Virginia has 
been almost entirely overlooked, more space has been given to 
the history of the Puritans in that colony than would otherwise 
have been necessary. 

I. 

Opposition to Lord Baltimore's Charter and the 
Dispute over Kent Island., 

In October, 1629, George Calvert, Baron Baltimore, ar- 
rived in Virginia on his way to England from his planta- 
tion in Newfoundland, He had already addressed a letter to 
his majesty signifying his intention of asking for a grant of 
land in Virginia, 1 in order that he might transfer his colony 
from Newfoundland to a more congenial climate. He was 
rather coldly received by the Virginians, who had received 
some intimation of his intention to settle in their midst. Being 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 15. 



131] 



Dispute over Kent Island. 



9 



very zealous iu their efforts to exclude Romanists from their 
colony, they tendered to him the oaths of supremacy and 
allegiance. These as a professed Catholic he could not take, 
and accordingly departed for England. 1 The following brief 
entry on the Virginia Court Records is the only reminiscence 
of this visit, but it serves to illustrate the state of feeling ex- 
isting at the time in reference to this distinguished visitor. 
" Thomas Tindall to be pilloried two hours for giving my 
Lord Baltimore the lie and threatening to knock him down." 2 

This visit of Lord Baltimore to Virginia made the inhabit- 
ants of that colony uneasy, knowing as they did the high 
favor in which he stood at court. A petition, therefore, was 
addressed to the King, on the 30th of November, 1629, by Dr. 
John Pott, the Governor, Samuel Mathews, Roger Smith, 
and William Claiborne, members of the Council, telling of 
Lord Baltimore's visit, and asking for a confirmation of their 
rights and protection for their religion. 3 

In May of the following year Claiborne, the Secretary of 
the colony of Virginia, was sent to England for the purpose 
of preventing the confirmation of a grant of land about to be 
made to Lord Baltimore south of the James. 4 The protest 
was successful for the time being. Lord Baltimore, however, 
did not relinquish his plan, and two years later succeeded in 
obtaining a grant north of the Potomac of as extensive a terri- 
tory, and with as ample powers of government, as he could 
have hoped for. He died in April, 1632, before the papers 
passed the seal, and the grant was confirmed to his son Cecilius 
Calvert on the 20th of June, 1632. 

Lord Baltimore's charter described the territory conveyed as 
hactenus inculta and inhabited only by savages. This was not 
true of the whole territory as Kent Island in the Chesapeake 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 16. 
* Hening, I, 552. 

3 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 16. 

4 Browne, History of Maryland, 16. 



10 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [132 

had been previously settled under the Virginia government 
by William Claiborne, the Secretary of State of that colony. 
Claiborne had been for several years engaged in trading with 
the Indians along the waters of the Chesapeake and its tribu- 
taries. For this purpose licenses were issued to him by the 
Governors of Virginia in the years 1627-28-29, giving him 
ample authority to trade with the natives for corn, furs, or any 
other commodity, and to make discoveries. 1 In the year 1629, 
he seems to have established a trading post on Kent Island, 
although the island was not regularly settled until two years 
later. 

Encouraged by the success of his enterprises in Chesapeake 
Bay, Claiborne decided to extend his trade beyond the limits 
of Virginia. For this purpose he entered into partnership 
with certain parties in London, Clobery and Company, and 
obtained a special license from the King, dated May 16, 1631. 2 
This license seems to have been drawn up by Sir William 
Alexander, the Scottish Secretary, under the privy seal of 
Scotland, and was obtained with a special view to carrying on 
trade with Nova Scotia, although the New England colonies 
were also mentioned in it, and Claiborne was authorized to 
trade for corn, furs, or any other commodity, in all those parts 
of America for which patents had not already been granted 
for sole trade. Nova Scotia had been granted to Sir William 
Alexander several years before, under the Scottish seal, to be 
held of the Crown of Scotland. 3 This accounts for Claiborne's 
license being issued under the seal of Scotland instead of 
England. It is hard to say just what the validity of such 
a paper was, or whether it had any validity at all. It was 
certainly equally as valid as the grant to Sir William Alex- 
ander under the seal of Scotland, 4 which was never called in 
question. It is important to note this license, because it was 



Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, II, 158-161. 

2 Ibid., I, 19. 

3 Purchas, Vol. IV, 1871 . 4 Chalmers, Annals, 212. 



133] 



Dispute over Kent Island. 



11 



on the technicality that a paper under the seal of Scotland 
could not be argued against one under the seal of England, 
that the case was decided against Claiborne by the Commis- 
sioners of Plantations in 1638. Governor Harvey of Virginia 
also issued a license to Claiborne a few months after the one 
just. referred to, authorizing him to "go unto the plantations 
of the Dutch, or unto any English plantation." 1 

In 1631 Kent Island was "planted and stocked" by 
Claiborne and his partners. The trading post was converted 
into a regular plantation. Captain William Claiborne, accord- 
ing to his own statement, "entered upon the Isle of Kent, 
unplanted by any man, but possessed by the natives of that 
country, with about 100 men and there contracted with the 
natives and bought their right, to hold of the Crown of 
England to him and his company and their heirs, and by 
force or virtue thereof William Claiborne and his company 
stood seized of the said Island." 2 There is no mention in 
the Virginia records of any formal grant to Claiborne by the 
Governor and Council, and his own language seems to imply 
that there was none, but that he based his claims solely on 
occupancy and purchase from the Indians. . 

The principal objections that have been raised to Claiborne's 
title to Kent Island may be classed under two heads, (1) that 
the Virginia colony had no right to the land in question at 
the time of its settlement, as their charter had been taken away 
several years before; and (2) that, even recognizing the juris- 
diction of Virginia, Claiborne had no grant of land from the 
government of that colony, and hence that the settlement was 
merely a trading post. 

The first of these objections is untenable. The colony of 
Virginia had as much right to Kent Island, at the time it 
was settled by Claiborne, as they had to the land upon which 
they were seated at Jamestown. There was no charter for 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, II, 163. 

2 Ibid., U, 162. 



12 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [134 

either, but their rights had been repeatedly confirmed by the 
King, and all rights in the colonies at this time depended abso- 
lutely upon his word. The fact that the charter of the London 
Company had been annulled did not affect the rights of the 
colony to settle lauds within the territory originally comprised 
in the grants to the Company, provided such lands had not 
already been granted by the Crown to other parties. This 
principle is distinctly stated in the commission issued to Gov- 
ernor Wyatt by James I shortly after the dissolution of the 
Company in 1624, 1 and again in a proclamation from Charles 
I in 1625, in explanation of the Quo Warranto proceedings. 2 
This right was also confirmed by a special letter on the sub- 
ject from the King's Council to the Governor and Council of 
Virginia, under date of July 22, 1634, in these words : "We 
do hereby authorize you to dispose of such proportions of 
lands to all those planters, being freemen, as you had power 
to do before the year 1625." 3 

In answer to the second objection it may be said that al- 
though there is no record of a grant to Claiborne, throughout 
the entire controversy with Lord Baltimore the Virginia 
Council recognized the validity of his title. It is further 
stated that there was no regular settlement on the island but 
only a trading post. Such was not the case. It appears from 
certain depositions taken in Virginia in May, 1640, in the 
case of Claiborne vs. Clobery, et al., that the island was stocked 
with between 150 and 200 cattle, that orchards and gardens 
were laid out, that mills were constructed, and that all the 
usual appurtenances of a permanent plantation were there. 4 It 
also appears that women were resident upon the island, 5 a fact 
which has been often denied, and there is also reference made 



1 Hazard, Collection of State Papers, I, 189. 

2 Ibid., I, 203. 

3 Chalmers, Annals, Chap. V, note 16. 

"Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, If, 187, 196, 199, &c. 
5 Ibid., 183 and 236. 



135] 



Dispute over Kent Island. 



13 



to a child, who was slain by the Indians. 1 In the year 1632, 
the plantation was represented in the Virginia Assembly by 
Captain Nicholas Martian, 2 an ancestor of George Wash- 
ington. 3 The minister in charge of the settlement was Rev. 
Richard James, a clergyman of the Established Church. 4 
Such was the condition of affairs when, on the 20th of June 

1632, the charter of Maryland was granted to Lord Baltimore. 
This grant called forth a loud remonstrance from the Virginia 
people. 5 They protested against the division of their territory 
and the dismemberment of their colony. They claimed that 
the mere fact of the dissolution of the Company did not infringe 
the rights of the colony to lands within the former grants to 
the Company. This protest came from the colony as a whole 
and not from Claiborne, as has sometimes been stated. The 
matter was heard and answered at the Star Chamber July 3, 

1633. Their Lordships decided to "leave Lord Baltimore to 
his charter and the other parties to the course of Law. 6 This 
was not a decision against Claiborne's claims to Kent Island, 
but against the wholesale claim of the colony of Virginia to 
all lands, whether vacant or settled, within their former grant. 

Claiborne and his associates, hoping no doubt that the re- 
monstrance of the Virginia colony would be effective in pre- 
venting Lord Baltimore's settlement in their territory, had 
deferred making any special plea on their own behalf until 
the result of the general decision should be known. As soon, 
however, as the decision was rendered against the claims of 
Virginia, Claiborne and his partners began to petition the 
King and Council for the protection of their interests. They 
claimed that they were not within Lord Baltimore's juris- 
diction, as his charter comprehended only unsettled lands, 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, II, 206. 
2 Hening, I, 154. 

3 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, April, 1894. 

4 Dr. Ethan Allen, MS. Sketch of Old Kent Parish, in Whittingham Library. 

5 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 17. 

6 Ibid., I, 21. 



14 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [136 

while they were a part of the colony of Virginia, having 
settled the island under that government before the grant to 
Lord Baltimore. The first petition was that of Sir John 
Wolstenholme and "other planters with Captain William 
Claiborne in Virginia," showing that they had settled the 
island with great expense, and praying that they might enjoy 
the same without interruption, and that Lord Baltimore might 
settle in some other place. 1 Tfris was in November, 1633, 
just as Leonard Calvert was setting sail with the first colonists 
for Maryland. 

Before leaving England the first settlers received from Lord 
Baltimore a set of instructions by which they were to be 
governed in planting the new colony. The fifth article of 
these instructions contains directions concerning Captain 
Claiborne. Lord Baltimore seems to have taken in the situ- 
ation and to have recognized the importance of conciliating 
Claiborne. He directed his brother, upon his arrival in 
Virginia, to write to Claiborne ; invite him to an interview ; 
to tell him that his Lordship, understanding that he had 
" settled a plantation there within the precincts of his Lord- 
ship's patent," was " willing to give him all the encouragement 
he could to proceed;" and that Clobery and Company had asked 
for a grant of the island to them, " making somewhat slight 
of Captain Claiborne's interest," but that his Lordship had 
deferred the matter until he could come to an understanding 
with Claiborne. The article concludes with the command 
that if Claiborne refuses to come to him, he is to let him alone 
for the space of one year. 2 Unfortunately, these instructions 
were not carried out in all particulars. 

In July preceding, the King had written to the Governor 
and Council of Virginia informing them that Lord Baltimore 
was about to settle Maryland and commanding them to treat 
him with the courtesy and respect due to a person of his rank, 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 24. 

2 Calvert Papers, 131. 



137] Dispute over Kent Island. 



15 



and to allow his servants and planters to buy and transport 
to their colony such cattle and other commodities as the Vir- 
ginians could spare. 1 Lord Baltimore did not conduct to 
America in person his colony, but sent it out under the com- 
mand of his brother Leonard Calvert. Leonard arrived in 
Virginia with his people in February, 1634, and remained 
there a few days in order to procure fresh supplies before pro- 
ceeding to Maryland. While in Virginia he had an interview 
with Claiborne in which he formally notified him that hence- 
forth he must consider himself a member of the Maryland 
colony and must " relinquish all relation and dependence" 
upon Virginia. At the next meeting of the Virginia Council 
a few days later, on the 14th of March, 1634, "Claiborne 
requested the opinion of the board, how he should demean 
himself in respect of Lord Baltimore's patent and his deputies 
now seated in the Bay." " It was answered by the board that 
they wondered why there should be any such question made. 
That they knew no reason why they should render up the 
rights of that place of the Isle of Kent, more than any other 
formerly given to this colony by his Majesty's patent; and 
that, the right of my Lord's grant being yet undetermined in 
England, we are bound in duty and by our oaths to maintain 
the rights and privileges of this colony. Nevertheless, in all 
humble submission to his Majesty's pleasure, we resolve to 
keep and observe all good correspondence with them, no way 
doubting that they on their parts will not intrench upon the 
interests of this his Majesty's plantation." 2 Backed by the 
authority of the Governor and Council of Virginia, Claiborne 
refused to consider himself a member of the Maryland colony 
and to yield his right to trade in the waters of the Chesapeake 
without license from Lord Baltimore. 

Shortly after the Maryland colony had arrived at St. Mary's, 
charges were preferred against Claiborne by Captain Henry 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 22. 

2 Ibid., II, 164. 



16 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [138 

Fleete to the effect that he was inciting the Indians to acts of 
hostility against the new settlement. Complaint was im- 
mediately made by the Maryland authorities to the Governor 
of Virginia, who put Claiborne under bond not to leave 
Jamestown until the charges were investigated. For this 
purpose commissioners were appointed by both governments, 
who met at Patuxent on the 20th of June, 1634, and pro- 
ceeded to examine the Chief of the Patuxents and other 
principal men as to the truth of Fleete's charges. The com- 
missioners on the part of Virginia were Samuel Mathews, 
John Utie, William Peirce, aad Thomas Hinton ; those on the 
part of Maryland were George Calvert and Frederick Winter. 
Claiborne and several others were also present. The result 
was a complete vindication of Claiborne. The Chief of the 
Patuxents indignantly denied the charges, giving Captain 
Fleete the lie, and saying that if he were present he would 
tell him so to his face. He further added that he wondered 
that they should take any notice of what Fleete said, where- 
upon the Virginia commissioners, by way of explanation, said 
that the gentlemen of Maryland "did not know Captain 
Fleete so well as we of Virginia because they were lately come." 1 
Fleete himself subsequently admitted the charges to be false, 
saying, by way of apology, that he had not made them under 
oath. 2 Fleete had been a rival of Claiborne in the fur trade, 
and upon the arrival of Baltimore's colony had pursued exactly 
the opposite policy, casting in his lot with the government 
at St. Mary's. Hence it was natural for one, who upon other 
occasions gave evidence of unscrupulousness of character, to try 
to prejudice the minds of the Marylanders against his rival. 3 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, II, 164-167. 

2 Calvert Papers, 141. 

3 While allowing for his propensity to misrepresent facts when it was to 
his interest to do so, we know Fleete did good service to both colonies. Re- 
turning to Virginia he made friends with Claiborne. Some twenty years 
later these old rivals jointly petitioned the Virginia Assembly for authority 
to make discoveries towards the South and West. Fleete ended his career 
in Lancaster County, Virginia. 



139] 



Dispute over Kent Island. 



17 



The charges against Claiborne, however, reached the ears 
of Lord Baltimore, and in September, 1634, he ordered his 
brother to seize the person of Claiborne and to detain him a 
close prisoner at St. Mary's until his Lordship's pleasure 
might be known. Calvert was also directed to take possession, 
if possible, of the plantation on Kent Island. 1 

At first Governor Harvey of Virginia seems to have taken 
the popular side of the controversy, but after the Marylanders 
were actually settled at St. Mary's, seeing no doubt that Lord 
Baltimore's influence would ultimately prevail against all 
attacks upon his charter, he warmly espoused the cause of the 
new colony. This, as we shall see, led to an insurrection in 
Virginia the following year, the upshot of which was that 
Governor Harvey was deposed from office and sent to England. 

On the 15th of December, 1634, Lord Baltimore sent to 
Secretary Windebank to ask for a letter of thanks from the 
King to Sir John Harvey, for the assistance he had given to 
his Maryland plantation against " Claiborne's malicious be- 
havior and unlawful proceedings." He said that his planta- 
tion, then in its infancy, would be in great danger of being 
overturned, if such letters were not sent off by the ship then 
ready to sail. Three days later a private letter from Secretary 
Windebank was obtained thanking Governor Harvey and 
desiring him to " continue his assistance against Claiborne's 
malicious practices." About ten days later the King wrote 
to Governor Harvey, stating the reasons for his grant to Lord 
Baltimore and desiring him to continue his assistance to Mary- 
land. The tone of this letter, however, is very different from 
that of the one written by Secretary Windebank. 2 There is 
no mention in it of Claiborne or his " malicious practices." 
Charles I seems to have been a staunch friend to Claiborne. 
Throughout the whole controversy the King seems to have 
been on his side, and there is not a word against Claiborne 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, II, 168. 
'Ibid., I, 25-27. 
2 



18 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [140 

and his claims to Kent Island, with the exception of the pri- 
vate letter referred to above from Secretary Windebank to 
Harvey, until the decision against him by the Commissioners 
of Plantations in 1638. It is difficult to understand the cause 
of his influence with the King. 

In October, 1634, the King was petitioned by Clobery and 
Company, Claiborne's partners in London, stating that Balti- 
more was about to dispossess them of Kent Island by force. 
This petition was occasioned by Baltimore's letter of Septem- 
ber 4, to Governor Calvert, ordering him to seize the person 
of Claiborne and to take possession of the plantation. It 
drew from the King a very remarkable letter to the Governor 
and Council of Virginia, dated October 8, 1634, in which he 
says that Baltimore's interference with the planters on Kent 
Island is "contrary to justice and to the true intention of our 
grant to the said Lord : we do therefore hereby declare our 
express pleasure to be that the said planters be in no sort inter- 
rupted in their trade or plantation by him or any other in his 

right, and we prohibit as well the Lord Baltimore, 

as all other pretenders under him or otherwise to plantations 
in those parts to do them any violence, or to disturb or hinder 
them in their honest proceedings and trade there." 1 The King 
had made the grant to Lord Baltimore and he here explains 
the meaning of that grant. 

Relying upon this letter and other assurances from the King, 
and from the Council of Virginia, Claiborne continued to trade 
in the waters of the Chesapeake. On the 5th of April, 1 635, 
a pinnace from Kent Island in command of Thomas Smith was 
seized in the Patuxent River by Captain Fleete and Captain 
Humber for trading in Maryland waters without a license 
from the Proprietary. Smith showed copies of his Majesty's 
commission and the letters confirming it, but the Marylanders 
disregarded them saying they were false copies, 2 and the vessel 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 29. 

2 Calvert Papers, 141. 



( 



141] Dispute over Kent Island. 19 

and goods were confiscated. This brought matters to a crisis. 
For the future Claiborne took the precaution of arming his ves- 
sels to prevent their being seized by the Maryland authorities. 
A collision soon took place, April 23, 1635, in the waters of 
the Pocomoke, between a vessel belonging to Claiborne, under 
command of Lieutenant Ratcliffe Warren, and two from St. 
Mary's under Captain Thomas Cornwalleys. The Mary- 
landers lost one man, while on the other side Warren and two 
of his men were killed and the vessel surrendered. A second 
fight occurred on the 10th of May, also in the Pocomoke River, 
in which Thomas Smith commanded a vessel of Claiborne's, 
and more blood was shed. Claiborne's men seem to have been 
the successful parties in this fight, and they were able to main- 
tain themselves on Kent Island and continue their trade for 
two years longer. 

The news of these disturbances in Maryland reached Vir- 
ginia at a very critical time. The opposition to Maryland 
and hence to Governor Harvey, who espoused the cause of 
the new colony, had been steadily on the increase. Claiborne 
was a man of great influence in Virginia, and the charges 
brought against him and the order to seize his person had 
caused considerable indignation in that colony. Nearly all 
the Councillors were his staunch personal friends. The feeling 
of the Virginians towards the neighboring colony had become 
extremely bitter. Captain Thomas Young, writing from 
Jamestown, July 13, 1634, says — " Here it is accounted a crime 
almost as heinous as treason to favor, nay, almost to speak 
well of that colony of my Lord's, and I have observed myself 
a palpable kind of strangeness and distance between those of 
the best sort in the country which have formerly been very 
familiar and loving one to another, only because the one hath 
been suspected but to have been a well-wisher to the Planta- 
tion of Maryland." 1 Governor Harvey, writing to Secretary 
Windebank, December 16, 1634, says that he accounts the 



1 Streeter Papers, Appendix, p. 291. 



20 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [142 



day when he did service to Lord Baltimore as the happiest of 
his life, but regrets that his authority is no longer very great, 
being limited by the council, almost all of whom are against 
him in whatever he can propose, especially if it concerns 
Maryland. It is the familiar talk of the Virginians, he says, 
"that they would rather knock their cattle on the head than 
sell them to Maryland." He adds that he has great cause to 
suspect that this faction is nourished from England, for during 
the past summer Captain Mathews received letters from Eng- 
land, upon the reading of which he "threw his hat upon the 
ground, scratching his head, and, in a fury stamping, cried a 
pox upon Maryland." 1 

Other causes of complaint against Harvey were that he un- 
dertook to rule without his Council, appropriated public fines 
to his own use, and intrigued with the Indians. 2 He had 
Claiborne turned out of office and Richard Kemp appointed 
Secretary in his place. The feelings of the people were greatly 
excited, especially in York County, where Anthony Panton, 
the minister at Kiskiack, gave expression to the popular in- 
dignation, roundly abusing Secretary Kemp, calling him " a 
jackanapes," and saying that he would shortly be turned out as 
Claiborne had been. 3 Matters came to a crisis in April, 1635. 4 
Another cause of complaint was the tobacco monopoly and 
Harvey enraged the people by refusing to send the protest of 
the Assembly to England. A petition to the Council for a 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 29. 

2 Letter from Mathews to Sir John Wolstenholme, May 25, 1635. 

3 Robinson MS., p. 78. 

4 The materials, from which this account of the mutiny against Harvey 
is derived, are found largely in the McDonald Papers, Vol. II, pp. 163-208, 
in the Virginia State Library. The De Jarnette Papers and the Sainsbury 
Papers, in the State Library, and the Robinson and Randolph MSS. in the 
library of the Virginia Historical Society contain additional matter relating 
to Panton and his controversy with Kemp. The letters of Harvey and 
Mathews, giving accounts of the mutiny, are published in the Virginia 
Magazine of History and Biography, April, 1894. Kemp's account has 
never been published. 



143] 



Dispute over Kent Island. 



21 



redress of grievances was circulated and the people assembled 
in crowds to sign it. Mathews, after relating the above men- 
tioned causes of complaint, says that Harvey u had reduced 
the colony to a great strait by complying with the Marylanders 
so far that between them and himself all places of trade for 
corn were shut up from them and no means left to relieve their 
wants without transgressing his commands which was very 
dangerous for any to attempt. ... The inhabitants also un- 
derstood with indignation that the Marylanders had taken 
Captain Claiborne's pinnaces and men with the goods in them 
whereof they had made prize and shared the goods amongst 
them, which action of theirs Sir John Harvey upheld contrary 
to his Majesty's express commands." 1 The reference is to the 
seizure of the pinnace in command of Thomas Smith in the 
Patuxent, April 5. The news of the fight on the Pocomoke, 
April 23, did not reach Virginia until after the insurrection 
was over. 

On April 27, a meeting was held at the house of William 
Warren at York to petition the council against Harvey, 
at which the chief speakers were Captain Nicholas Martian, 
who had formerly represented Kent Island in the Assembly, 
Francis Pott, a brother of Dr. John Pott the former Gover- 
dor, and William English, the High Sheriff of York County. 
The next morning the Governor had the three arrested. 
When they demanded the cause of their commitment he 
answered that they should know at the gallows. The next 
day Pott was examined before the Council in regard to the 
petition he had circulated. He said that "if he had offended 
he did appeal to the King for he was sure of no justice from 
Sir John Harvey." Upon this he was again committed and 
the Council adjourned for that night. When they convened 
again the next day, the Governor, walking up and down the 
room in an excited manner, demanded that martial law should 
be executed against the prisoners. The Council insisted that 



1 Letter from Mathews to Sir John Wolstenholme, May 25, 1635. 



22 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [144 

they should have a legal trial. The Governor then asked the 
Council if they had knowledge of the petition, or of the 
people's grievances. George Minifie replied that the chief 
grievance was the detaining of the letters of the Assembly to 
his Majesty. Whereupon Harvey, rising in a great rage, 
struck him a severe blow on the shoulder, saying, " I arrest you 
upon suspicion of treason to his Majesty." Then Captain Utie, 
who was nearby, laid hands on the Governor, saying, "And we 
the like to you, Sir !" Samuel Mathews, afterwards Governor, 
then took Harvey in his arms and compelled him to be seated. 
While the Governor was struggling with Mathews and Utie, 
Dr. John Pott, brother of one of the prisoners, cautioning 
Harvey's servants not to interfere, waved his hand and 50 
musketeers surrounded the house. As soon as the excitement 
had cooled down, Mathews told the Governor that the people's 
anger was beyond control unless he would consent to go to 
England to answer the complaints against him. At first 
Harvey would not hear to this, but finally agreed that if they 
would draw up their propositions in writing he would con- 
sider the matter. Two days later, finding that the insurrection 
was not confined to York County, but extended over the en- 
tire colony, he resolved to go to England, and signified his 
intention to the Council upon these conditions : (1) that they 
would select one of the Council, whom he should nominate, 
Governor until the King's pleasure should be known; (2) 
that they would swear upon the Holy Evangelists to offer no 
hostility to those of Maryland ; and (3) that Captain Mathews, 
Captain Peirce, and Mr. Minifie should likewise go to Eng- 
land. The Council would not consent to these conditions and 
Harvey was forced to yield the point. A proclamation was 
then published in the name of the Council, stating that Harvey 
would go to England and commanding all persons to disperse to 
their several homes. The Council then set at liberty the three 
prisoners, and after issuing a call for an Assembly adjourned. 

The Assembly met May 7, 1635, and, in conjunction with 
the Council, elected Captain John West of Kiskiack, a brother 



145] 



Dispute over Kent Island. 



23 



of Lord Delaware, Governor, until the King's pleasure should 
be known. Harvey was sent to England in the custody of 
Francis Pott, his late prisoner, and Thomas Harwood repre- 
sentatives of the Assembly. 

This action of the Virginians in deposing his Majesty's 
representative was nothing more nor less than open rebellion, 
and Charles declared that Harvey should be sent back, " though 
he stay but a day." 1 Mathews, West, Utie, Peirce, and other 
leaders of the insurrection were summoned to stand trial in 
England, while Harvey and Kemp wreaked their vengeance 
on Panton, the minister at Kiskiack, who had remained in the 
colony. His goods were confiscated and he was banished from 
the colony for ct mutinous, rebellious and riotous actions." 
But in the end the popular cause triumphed. In 1639, 
Harvey was removed from office, and Sir Francis Wyatt, who 
had before served the colony as Governor with great credit, 
succeeded him. Kemp retained his office of Secretary through 
the influence of Lord Baltimore. The sentence against Pan- 
ton was reversed and the leaders of the insurrection were re- 
stored to their estates, which had been confiscated by Harvey. 2 

When Harvey was sent to England in 1635, he said, speak- 
ing of the conduct of the Virginians, " it is to be feared that 
they intend no less than the subjection of Maryland, for whilst 
I was aboard the ship and ready to depart the colony, there 
arrived Captain William Claiborne from the Isle of Kent, 
with the news of an hostile encounter 'twixt some of his people 
and those of Maryland." 3 The new government, however, did 



1 Sainsbury Papers, Vol. Ill, p. 137. 

2 Sainsbury Papers. 

Note. — To show how imperfectly the affairs of this period of Virginia 
history have been understood, Burk, who denounces Claiborne in strong 
terms, censures Harvey for not delivering him up to the Maryland authori- 
ties, when, as a matter of fact, Harvey was himself under arrest for the 
very reason that he had taken sides with Baltimore against Claiborne. See 
Burk, History of Virginia, II, p. 40. 

3 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 38. 



24 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [146 

not undertake the reduction of Maryland, but recognized and 
attempted to uphold Claiborne's claims in a peaceable way. 
West, the acting Governor, writing to the Commissioners of 
Plantations in March, 1636, says: "Without infringing his 
Majesty's grant to the Lord Baltimore, we have taken the 
nearest course for avoiding of further unnatural broils between 
them of Maryland, and those of the Isle of Kent. As we find 
those of Maryland in our limits we bind them in deep bonds, 
to keep the King's peace towards those of the Isle of Kent, 
as also Captain Claiborne the Commander of the Isle of Kent 
towards those of Maryland." 1 

In view of the unsettled state of affairs in Virginia and of 
the probability of the appointment of a new governor, Lord 
Baltimore made an attempt, early in the year 1637, to have 
himself appointed Governor of Virginia. He did not make 
the proposition openly but approached his Majesty through 
the mediation and influence of his friend Secretary Wind ebank. 
He offered to undertake to increase his Majesty's revenue from 
Virginia £8000 yearly, and to do this without imposing any 
additional taxes or duties. 2 Whether or not he thought that 
his appointment would have such a pacifying effect upon the 
Virginians, and so promote the general prosperity of the 
colony, as to increase the King's revenue to the extent of 
£8000, is not recorded. It is possible that he may have re- 
garded this as the only solution of the Claiborne difficulty. 
However this may be, he did not receive the appointment, 
and we do not know that his Majesty ever considered the 
proposition. 

Meanwhile, there seems to have been no serious trouble 
between the Kent Islanders and the inhabitants of St. Mary's 
until December, 1637, when the island was surrendered to 
the Maryland authorities through the treachery of George 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 40. 

2 Ibid., I, 41-42. 



147] 



Dispute over Kent Island. 



25 



Evelin. 1 Evelio was sent over by Clobery and Company in the 
fall of 1636, to look after their interests on Kent Island. Since 
the settlement of Maryland they had almost entirely neglected 
Claiborne, 2 fearing to risk any more capital in the venture, 
while their title to the island was in dispute. Claiborne 
carried on the trade as best he could by means of his own 
servants and resources. The disturbances which had arisen 
between him and the settlement at St. Mary's had greatly in- 
terfered with the trade and curtailed the profits therefrom. 
Clobery and Company seem to have become dissatisfied with 
the condition of things and sent over Evelin to look after 
their interests. He arrived at Kent Island in December, 
1636. At first Evelin either was or pretended to be an ardent 
supporter of Claiborne's claims to the island, and asserted 
boldly in the presence of the inhabitants that the King's com- 
mission to Claiborne and his subsequent letter in confirmation 
thereof were firm and strong against the Maryland patent. 3 
He even went so far as to use abusive language in reference 
to the Calvert family, saying that Leonard Calvert's grand- 
father had been but a grazier, while he himself was a dunce 
and blockhead at school. By such means he won the confi- 
dence of the people and probably of Claiborne himself. In 
February, 1637, a supply of servants and goods arrived from 
Clobery and Company, consigned to Evelin instead of to 
Claiborne, and with them a power of attorney for Evelin, and 
instructions to Claiborne requiring him to assign to Evelin the 
control of the servants, goods, and all property belonging to 
the joint stock, and to come to England in order to explain 
his proceedings and adjust his accounts. He was also directed 
to take an accurate inventory of their property and to require 



1 The materials for this account of the surrender of Kent Island are drawn 
from certain depositions taken in Virginia, in May, 1640, in the case of Clai- 
borne vs. Clobery et al., obtained from the English State Paper Office, and 
published in the Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, II, pp. 181-239. 

2 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, II, 193. 

3 Ibid., II, 215. 



26 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [148 

of Evelin a bond for its safe keeping. Accordingly in Ma}', 
1637, a few days before his departure for England, he offered, 
in the presence of the freemen and servants of the island, to 
surrender entire possession to Evelin, if he would give bond 
to the amount of £3000 not to alienate the island to the Mary- 
landers, and not to carry away any of the servants. This 
Evelin refused to do, saying that he wanted no assignment 
from Claiborne and would take possession whether he would 
or not. 1 After a second attempt to get a bond from Evelin, 
Claiborne under protest left him in possession of the settlement 
and sailed for England. 

Now that Evelin was in full possession of the island he 
developed his plans very rapidly. Whatever his original 
intention, he now determined to unite his fortunes with the 
settlement at St. Mary's, and to effect the reduction of the 
island to the authority of Lord Baltimore. To this end he 
opened negotiations with Leonard Calvert, and instead of at- 
tending to the business of Clobery and Company occupied his 
time with visits to St. Mary's. But the subjection of the 
island was a far more difficult task than he had anticipated. 
He tried in vain to persuade the inhabitants to renounce their 
allegiance to Claiborne and to submit to the jurisdiction of 
Lord Baltimore. They could not be moved. Finally de- 
spairing of accomplishing his end by peaceful measures, he 
endeavored to persuade Leonard Calvert to reduce the island 
by force. Calvert was for some time reluctant to resort to 
force, but the importunity of Evelin at last prevailed over 
his scruples, and in December, 1637, he led an armed ex- 
pedition of about 40 men by night against the island, captured 
the fort, and succeeded in reducing the inhabitants to sub- 
mission. Evelin was appointed Commander of Kent Island 
by a Commission dated December 30, 1637. Thomas Smith 
and John Boteler, two of the principal men on the island, 
were arrested and taken prisoners to St. Mary's. 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, II, 215-216. 



149] 



Dispute over Kent Island. 



27 



Warrants were soon issued for the arrest of a large number 
of persons on the island, either on pretence of answering a suit 
of Clobery and Company for debt, or on charges of sedition, 
piracy, and murder. These proceedings provoked an out- 
break, and in February, 1638, while the Assembly was in 
session at St. Mary's, Calvert found it necessary to lead a 
second expedition against the island. After some days he suc- 
ceeded in again reducing it to his authority. In return for his 
services Evelin was made " Lord of the Manor of Evelinton " 
near St. Mary's. Now that his object was accomplished he 
paid no further attention to Kent Island, but retired to his 
manor, taking with him a number of servants and other 
property belonging to Clobery and Claiborne, and even dig- 
ging up the fruit trees in Claiborne's garden and transporting 
them to Maryland. 1 Clobery and Company had reason to 
regret the confidence they had reposed in Evelin. The re- 
duction of the island was in no way authorized by them and 
they continued to unite their petitions with Claiborne against 
Lord Baltimore. 

Upon the return of Governor Calvert from Kent Island, 
the Assembly proceeded to try Thomas Smith, who had com- 
manded Claiborne's vessel in one of the encounters on the 
Pocomoke, on an indictment for murder and piracy. As there 
were no legally organized courts, the Proprietary having 
vetoed all previous acts of the Assembly, Smith was tried 
before the bar of the House, Secretary Lewger acting as prose- 
cuting attorney. He was found guilty with only one dissenting 
voice and sentenced to be hanged. It has been stated that 
this sentence was never executed, as there is no official record 
of it. But in the depositions in the case of Claiborne vs. Clo- 
bery et al.j before alluded to, it is distinctly stated that he was 
hanged, 2 together with Edward Beckler, another adherent of 
Claiborne's. 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, II, 196 and 211. 
9 Ibid., II, 187. 



28 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [150 

The same Assembly, March, 1638, passed a bill of attainder 
against William Claiborne, declaring him guilty of piracy 
and murder and " that he forfeit to the Lord Proprietary all 
his lands and tenements which he was seized of on the 23rd 
day of April, 1635." 1 In pursuance of this act the property 
of Claiborne on Kent and Palmer's Islands was attached and 
appropriated to the use of the Lord Proprietary. 2 In view of 
the fact that the acts of this Assembly were vetoed by Lord 
Baltimore it would be interesting to know by what legal right 
Claiborne's property was confiscated. 

A few days after the passage of this bill of attainder against 
Claiborne, the Lords Commissioners of Plantations, to whom 
the various petitions of Claiborne and Lord Baltimore had 
been referred, delivered their opinion, April 4, 1638, declar- 
ing the right and title to the Isle of Kent and other places in 
question to be absolutely belonging to Lord Baltimore. 3 

A few months before this decision the King had ordered 
the Commissioners not to allow any patents, commissions, or 
letters, in any way prejudicial to Lord Baltimore, to pass the 
seal. 4 The decision was given without reference to the claims 
of Virginia, or to Claiborne's plea that he was a member of 
that colony. Lord Baltimore had a charter from the King, 
and Claiborne had only a trading license under the seal of 
Scotland. Chalmers says: "The principle of this decision 
strikes deep into the validity of the patents of Nova Scotia, 
passed under the great seal of Scotland in 1621-25; because 
the privy Council allowed no force to a license under the privy 
signet of that kingdom when pleaded against a grant under 
the great seal of England. Yet, it is to be lamented, that 
similar adjudications have not been at all times perfectly 
uniform, and with a spirit of inconsistence which equity 



1 Maryland Archives, Proceedings of the Assembly, I, p. 23. 

2 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 76. 

3 Ibid., I, 71. 4 Ibid., I, 55. 



151] 



Dispute over Kent Island. 



29 



reprobates, different men have received different measures 
of justice." 1 

In a similar dispute, some fifty years later, between Lord 
Baltimore and William Penn the Commissioners of Planta- 
tions went back on the principle of this decision of 1638. In 
the decision of 1685, by which half of the Delaware Peninsula 
was adjudged to Penn, they declared " that the land intended to 
be granted by the Lord Baltimore's Patent was only land un- 
cultivated and inhabited by savages, and that this tract of land 
now in dispute was inhabited and planted by Christians at 
and before the date of the Lord Baltimore's Patent." 2 

Clobery and Company made one more effort. On the 28th 
of June, 1638, more than two months after the decision, they 
addressed the following complaint to Secretary Coke : " The 
many wrongs and oppressions which we suffer from Lord 
Baltimore's people in Maryland, who have lately with armed 
men coming in the night surprised our plantation, removed 
our servants, and wholly ruinated what we had there, en- 
forceth us to renew our complaint to his Sacred Majesty." 3 
On the 14th of July, the King wrote to Lord Baltimore, 
stating that he had referred to the Commissioners the exam- 
ination of the truth of these complaints and requiring him to 
" perform what our former general letter did enjoin and that 
the above named planters and their agents, may enjoy in the 
meantime their possessions, and be safe in their persons and 
goods there, without disturbance or further trouble by you or 
any of yours till that cause be decided." 4 On the 21st of July, 
David Morehead delivered this letter to Lord Baltimore in 
the presence of George Fletcher, Thomas Bullon, Captain 
William Claiborne, and William Bennett, and demanded an 
answer, so that instructions might be sent to his deputies by 
the ships about to sail, according to the.tenor of his Majesty's 



1 Annals, 212. * Ibid., I, 77. 

2 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, II, 455. 4 Ibid., I, 78. 



30 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [152 

letter. Baltimore refused to give an answer, saying that he 
would wait upon his Majesty and give him satisfaction therein. 1 

After the decision of 1638, Claiborne, having given up all 
hope of obtaining a redress of grievances in England, returned 
to Virginia, and endeavored to recover his personal property 
from the Maryland government. To this end, as it would 
have been rather unsafe for* him to venture into Maryland 
himself, in view of the act of attainder passed against him two 
years before, he gave a power of attorney to George Scovell, 
August 21, 1640. To Sco veil's petition the Governor and 
Council replied, that whatever estate Captain Claiborne left 
in that province at his departure in March, 1637, was pos- 
sessed by right of forfeiture to the Lord Proprietary for certain 
crimes of piracy and murder. If the petitioner could find out 
any of the said estate not held by that right he would do well 
to inform his Lordship's attorney of it that it might be re- 
covered to his Lordship's use. 2 

Claiborne seems to have given up all idea of recovering his 
possessions in Maryland, and to have settled down quietly in 
Virginia. In 1642, Charles I appointed him Treasurer of 
Virginia for life. 3 This was an attempt no doubt to conciliate 
him for the losses he had suffered in Maryland. 

In the year 1644, while the civil war was raging in Eng- 
land, Claiborne, who had all along been closely identified with 
Samuel Mathews and the democratic element in the colony, 
determined to cast in his lot with the Parliamentary party, 
and renewed his claims to Kent Island, in the hope that they 
would be recognized now that the Protestant party was in 
power. Accordingly during the temporary absence of Gov- 
ernor Berkeley in England, he regained possession of Kent 
Island, the inhabitants of which were glad to welcome him 
back. Very little is known of his proceedings at this time, 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, II, 174. 

2 Ibid., I, 92-93. 

3 Hazard, Collection of State Papers, I, 493. 



153] Rise of the Puritans in Virginia. 31 

but the fact of his having acquired control of the island is 
established beyond doubt. 1 

About the same time Richard Ingle, also a Parliamentarian, 
took St. Mary's, the seat of government, and forced Governor 
Calvert to flee for safety into Virginia. There is no evidence 
of any agreement between Ingle and Claiborne, although it is 
possible that there was a tacit understanding. They kept con- 
trol of Maryland for about two years. Towards the close of the 
year 1646, Calvert collected his scattered forces and with the 
assistance of Governor Berkeley, who had now returned from 
England, succeeded in recovering the lost province. Balti- 
more had the year before given up all hope of retaining Mary- 
land and had directed his brother Leonard to gather together 
whatever personal property he could and make his escape. But 
Leonard thought differently, and subsequently Lord Baltimore 
himself turned Parliamentarian and thus saved his possessions. 

II. 

The Eise of the Puritans in Virginia and their 
Expulsion under Governor Berkeley. 

The first portion of this paper has been occupied with events 
of a political nature. It is now necessary to consider the 
policy of the two colonies in regard to religious matters, 
especially their treatment of the Puritans and the causes which 
led to the expulsion of a large number of them from Virginia 
and their settlement in Maryland. 

The religious element did not enter into the settlement ot 
the southern colonies in as marked a degree as it did into the 
settlement of New England. Religion, however, was to the 
men of the seventeenth century very much a matter of course. 
The whole English nation, Cavalier and Puritan alike, clothed 
their thoughts in the language of Scripture in a way which to 



Maryland Archives, Provincial Court Proceedings, I, 281, 435, 458-459. 



32 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [154 

us at the present day seems the veriest cant. Hence in the 
earliest charters of Virginia, although the enterprise was at 
first purely commercial, we find the strongest expression of 
religious sentiments and purposes, and a clergyman of the 
Established Church accompanied the first colony to Jamestown. 
The Anglican Church thus became established in Virginia 
and throughout the colonial era that colony was the strong- 
hold of episcopacy in this country. But it was episcopacy 
of a modified type. The American branch of the English 
Church occupied quite an anomalous position. It presented 
the paradox of an episcopal church without an episcopate. 
No Anglican bishop ever set foot upon the shores of America 
prior to the Revolution, and the Bishop of London, whose 
jurisdiction over Virginia was recognized in a measure from 
the first by virtue of the residence of the London Company 
within his diocese, was not even represented by a commissary 
until 1689. In that year the Rev. James Blair was sent out 
with formal authority to act as commissary, and from that 
time forward some of the less important functions of the office 
of bishop were exercised by a representative. It is hardly 
necessary to add that throughout the colonial period the rites 
of ordination and confirmation were not performed in the 
colonies. 1 The vestries claimed the right of presentation and 
the Governor the right of induction, but as a matter of fact 
induction rarely ever took place. It became customary for 
the vestries to hire their ministers from year to year without 
presenting them to the Governor. 2 Thus church government 
in Virginia, while theoretically episcopal, was practically 
congregational. 

To the uncertainty of tenure was added another circum- 
stance, which was more or less of an obstacle in the way of 
ministers coming to the colony. This was the fact that salaries 



1 Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, I, 73. 

2 Campbell, History of Virginia, 278, also Bishop Perry's Collection of Papers, 
261, ff. 



155] 



Bise of the Puritans in Virginia. 



33 



were paid in tobacco, the amount in pounds being fixed by 
statute. The bad quality of the tobacco in certain parishes 
left them almost entirely without the ministrations of the 
Established Church. 1 This condition of affairs, added to the 
practical independence of the vestries, favored the growth of 
dissenters, and it is a striking fact that the Puritans and after- 
wards the Quakers congregated in those parishes where the 
bad quality of the tobacco did not favor the growth of the 
Established Church. 

The governors showed their loyalty to the establishment by 
requiring the Assemblies to pass, at the beginning of each 
session, a body of statutes enjoining strict conformity to the 
rights and ordinances of the Church of England. These acts, 
which became especially strict from Harvey's time on, were 
largely formal. They were a re-echo of those passed in 
England under the influence of Archbishop Laud, and were 
intended, no doubt, to catch the eye of that zealous and all- 
powerful prelate, but there was no Laud in this country to 
secure their enforcement, so they were largely deprived of 
their severity. 

As regards the matter of religious toleration a comparison 
with the mother country and the New England colonies is 
decidedly favorable to Virginia. There is no record of the 
infliction of the death penalty in Virginia for reasons of a 
spiritual nature. 

Such being the organization of the established church in 
Virginia, it is not strange that Puritans found a refuge there 
from the persecution that was directed against them in 
England. 

About three years after the congregation of dissenters, who 
were to become famous as the Pilgrim Fathers, left England 
to seek in Holland a refuge from religious persecution, another 
little band of Puritans passed silently and unobserved to the 
new world. They were not separatists like those who went to 



1 Hugh Jones, Present State of Virginia, 106; Col. Byrd's Diary, 42. 

3 



34 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [156 

Holland, but they escaped from their native land to avoid the 
same persecution. They reached Virginia on the 10th of May, 
1611, in company with other colonists sent out by the London 
Company under the command of Sir Thomas Dale, who had 
just been appointed High Marshall of Virginia. Dale suc- 
ceeded Lord Delaware, who had been compelled by ill health 
to leave the colony two months before. He was not com- 
missioned as Governor, but was to act as such until the arrival 
of Sir Thomas Gates. Prior to coming to Virginia, Dale had 
served in the Netherlands as captain of an English company 
in the service of the States General. He was granted a leave 
of absence for three years in order to come to Virginia. 1 He 
was thus an experienced soldier and it was no doubt for this 
reason that he was appointed High Marshall. 

As soon as Gates arrived Dale left Jamestown, accompanied 
by about 350 men, some of whom were Puritans and others 
Dutch laborers, and proceeded up the James to form a new 
settlement, named by him Henricopolis (contracted into 
Henrico) in honor of Henry, Prince of Wales. This was the 
second settlement made in Virginia. He selected for the site 
of his town a peninsula about 12 miles below the present city 
of Eichmond. The river at this point makes a remarkable 
bend, and after flowing in a circuit of seven miles, returns to 
a point within 120 yards of the place of deviation. A place 
admirably adapted for defense against the Indians, Dale's 
city had three streets of well-framed houses, a handsome 
church, and the foundations of another to be built of brick, 
besides store-houses and watch-houses. On the opposite side 
of the river was a tract of land secured by forts and a palisade 
about two miles and a half in length. This tract was known 
as Hope-in-Faith, and the forts which defended it were called 
Fort Charity, Fort Elizabeth, Fort Patience, and Mount 
Malady, the last being used also as a hospital. 2 These names 



1 Brown, Genesis of the U. S., 446. 

2 Stith, 124. Hamor's Narrative in Smith's General History. 



157] 



Rise of the Puritans in Virginia. 



35 



in themselves are suggestive of the Puritan origin of the 
settlers. 

Dale was accompanied by Rev. Alexander Whitaker, grate- 
fully remembered as the apostle of Virginia. He was a son 
of the distinguished Puritan divine, Dr. William Whitaker, 
Master of St. John's College and Regius Professor of Divinity 
in the University of Cambridge. 1 Dr. Whitaker distinguished 
himself by controversial writings against the Church of Rome 
and took a leading part in framing the Lambeth Articles, 
which were strongly Calvinistic. 2 At the time that Whitaker 
the younger decided to go to Virginia, he was a graduate of 
Cambridge of five or six years standing, and in possession of 
a comfortable living in the north of England. " Without any 
persuasion, but God's and his own heart, he did voluntarily 
leave his warm nest ; and, to the wonder of his kindred and 
amazement of them that knew him, undertook this hard but 
heroical resolution to go to Virginia, and to help to bear the 
name of God unto the Gentiles." 3 

In 1613 Whitaker went back to Jamestown with Dale, 
who was again placed in command of the colony by the return 
of Gates to England. One of his letters, dated Jamestown, 
June, 1614, to a cousin in London, is very remarkable and 
throws considerable light on the condition of the church in the 
colony. He says : " But I much more muse that so few of 
our English ministers, that were so hot against the surplis 
and subscription, come hither, where neither is spoken of." 4 
Whitaker was drowned in the James River in the Spring of 
1617, under circumstances which have not come down to us. 



1 Purchas, IV, 1770. 2 Anderson, History of the Colonial Church, I, 135. 
:{ Crashaw, Introduction to Whitaker's Good Newes from Virginia. 
4 Purchas, IV, 1771. 

In 1613 Pocahontas married John Rolfe, and Whitaker was called upon 
to instruct her in the principles of the Christian religion, and to officiate at 
her baptism and marriage. In the celebrated painting of the baptism in 
the rotunda of the Capitol at Washington, he is represented as clothed in 
the surplice which he himself tells us was not in use in Virginia. 



36 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [158 

The years 1619-20-21, brought large accessions to the 
population of the colony, due to the liberal policy of the 
Company under the intelligent management of Sir Edwin 
Sandys and the Earl of Southampton. In 1619 the English 
separatists, who were then in Holland, obtained from the 
London Company, through the influence of Sandys, a patent 
authorizing them to settle in Virginia. They embarked in 
the Mayflower in 1620 and directed their course toward the 
mouth of the Hudson, then a part of Virginia. A storm, 
however, drove them out of their course and carried them to 
the north beyond the limits of the London Company's territory. 
The incident is interesting as illustrating the policy of the 
Company at this time. When a few years later the King 
was preparing to dissolve the Company and evidence was 
being collected against prominent members, it was charged 
against Sandys that he had intended to establish a free popu- 
lar state of Brownists and separatists in Virginia with himself 
and his friends at its head. 1 Sandys, of course, never enter- 
tained any such idea as this, but he did undoubtedly encourage 
the emigration of Puritans to Virginia. 

About this time two Puritan settlements were begun in the 
colony, which were destined to have a considerable influence 
upon the future history of both Virginia and Maryland. 

The first, in Warrosquoyacke Shire, now Isle of Wight 
County, was commenced in 1619 by Captain Christopher 
Lawne on a creek which still bears his name. Lawne was 
a member of the first Assembly which met at Jamestown, 
June, 1619. He died the next year and his patent was re- 
newed to his associates. The name of the plantation was 
changed to Isle of Wight, from which the county afterwards 
took its name. 2 



1 Appendix to 8th Report of Royal Commission on Historical MSS., 
Parts II and III, p. 45. 

2 Records of the London Company. 



159] 



Rise of the Puritans in Virginia. 



37 



In 1621 Edward Bennett, a wealthy merchant of London, 
settled a colony of Puritans on Lawne's Creek. Bennett's 
name occurs as Deputy-Governor of the Merchant Adven- 
turers resident at Delft/ where so many English Puritans 
flocked that it became almost a second London. At a gen- 
eral court, held November 1621, the London Company con- 
firmed a patent to Edward Bennett for having planted 200 
persons in Virginia. 2 At this time 50 acres of land where 
allowed for every person transported to the colony. Bennett 
himself did not come to Virginia, but placed the plantation 
in charge of his nephews, Robert and Richard Bennett, the 
latter of whom was subsequently governor of Virginia. 
William Bennett, another relative, was the first preacher in 
charge of the settlement. 

This plantation received a severe blow from the Indian 
massacre of March, 1622. More than 50 were killed. During 
the next year 26 of those who survived the massacre died, 
leaving according to a census taken in February, 1624, 29 
whites and 4 negroes. 3 The settlement prospered, however, 
in spite of these heavy losses. 

In January 1622, Captain Nathaniel Basse settled at Basse's 
Choice, in Warrosquoyacke, not far from the Bennett planta- 
tion. He received patents for transporting 100 persons. 4 
Basse had been associated with Lawne in 1619. In March 
1632 he was commissioned by Governor Harvey to invite 
such of the inhabitants of New England as were dissatisfied 
with the climate to come further South and settle on Delaware 
Bay. 5 None availed themselves of the invitation. The Pur- 
itans who settled in Virginia came direct from England, and 
although a number of them afterward went to New England, 
there is no evidence of any coming from New England to 
Virginia, except indeed the three preachers in 1642, whose 



1 Neill, English Colonization of America. 

2 Records of the London Company. 3 Hotten, Lists of Emigrants. 

4 Kecords of the London Company. 5 Randolph MSS., Vol. Ill, 219. 



38 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [160 

stay was short. These Puritan settlements in Warrosquoyacke 
seem to have steadily increased in numbers and in 1629 they 
sent 4 burgesses to the assembly, among them Richard Ben- 
nett and Nathaniel Basse. 1 

In November 1621, Daniel Gookin arrived out of Ireland 
with 50 men of his own and 30 passengers, " exceedingly well 
furnished with all sorts of provision and cattle," and planted 
himself at Newport News. He is mentioned as having under- 
taken to transport " great multitudes of people and cattle " to 
Virginia, and received patents for 300 people. 2 After the 
massacre of 1622 the colonists were ordered to abandon the 
outlying plantations and to concentrate their forces about the 
stronger ones. Gookin's settlement at Newport News was one 
of those ordered to be abandoned, but he refused to obey the 
order and gathering together his dependants, who amounted in 
all to only 35, remained at his post, " to his great credit and 
the content of his adventurers." 3 

In 1637 Gookin received a grant of 2,500 acres in Upper 
Norfolk, now Nansemond County, and in 1642 he was ap- 
pointed commander of the county. He and his son, who 
accompanied him, were both natives of Kent County, England, 
though they had traded in Ireland. They were Puritans and 
closely associated with the Bennett settlement in the adjoining 
county. 

The Puritans seem to have encountered not the slightest 
opposition on account of their religious views until the arrival 
of Governor Berkeley in 1642. The administration of Sir 
William Berkeley, one of the best known and most distin- 
guished characters of the colonial period, marks a new epoch in 
Virginia history. For more than thirty years he was the most 
conspicuous figure in the affairs of the colony, and that too 
during a period marked by events of a most striking and 
unusual character. He was a perfect type of the Cavalier, 



^ening, I, 139. 
3 Stith, 235. 



Kecords of the London Company. 



161] 



Rise of the Puritans in Virginia. 



39 



narrow-minded, hot-headed, out-spoken, and withal very 
zealous in his support of the Established Church. He once 
expressed the wish that the ministers in the colony would pray 
oftener and preach less, and added : " But I thank God there 
are no free schools, nor printing, and I hope we shall not have 
them these hundred years." The political principles and 
religious tenets of the Puritans were equally offensive to him, 
and he soon found occasion for displaying his hostility towards 
them. This was afforded by the presence in Virginia of three 
congregational preachers from New England. 

We have before alluded to the fact that the bad quality of 
the tobacco in certain parts of the colony did not favor the 
growth of the Established Church. This was especially the 
case in Nansemond County, where the Puritans were congre- 
gated. Rev. Hugh Jones, writing in 1724, says: "Some 
parishes are long vacant upon account of the badness of the 
tobacco, which gives room for dissenters, especially Quakers, 
as in Nansemond County." 1 Colonel Byrd in his Diary, 
written in 1728, confirms this statement. "We passed by no 
less than two Quaker meeting houses, one of which had an 
awkward ornament on the west end of it, that seemed to ape 
a steeple. I must own I expected no such piece of foppery, 
from a sect of so much outside simplicity. That persuasion 
prevails much in the lower end of Nansemond County, for 
want of ministers to pilot the people a decenter way to Heaven. 
The ill reputation of the tobacco in those lower parishes makes 
the clergy unwilling to accept of them, unless it be such whose 
abilities are as mean as their pay. Thus, whether the churches 
be quite void or but indifferently filled, the Quakers will have 
an opportunity of gaining proselytes. 'Tis a wonder no Popish 
missionaries are sent from Maryland to labor in this neglected 
vineyard, who we know have zeal enough to traverse sea and 
land on the meritorious errand of making converts. Nor is 



1 Present State of Virginia, 106. 



40 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [162 

it less strange that some wolf in sheep's clothing arrives not 
from New England to lead astray a flock that has no shep- 
herd." 1 This last sentence is rather strange, for Colonel 
Byrd probably knew nothing of the missionary efforts of the 
New England preachers nearly a century before. These pas- 
sages were, of course, written at a much later period than 
the one under consideration, when the Quakers were quite 
numerous in that section of the colony, but they are of great 
interest as showing that the Church of England had never 
been well established there. 

Whatever the cause it is quite certain that at the time of 
Governor Berkeley's arrival in Virginia the parishes of Up- 
per Norfolk, or Nansemond as it was afterwards called, were 
vacant, and the inhabitants being more religiously inclined 
than most of the Virginians of that day, decided to appeal to 
their brethren in New England for aid. During the sum- 
mer of 1642 Philip Bennett was dispatched with letters to 
the elders at Boston. He arrived there safely in a small 
pinnace, while the General Court was in session. The letters 
were read publicly in Boston on a " Lecture Day." They 
were signed by Richard Bennett, afterwards Governor, Daniel 
Gookin, John Hill, and others, 71 in all, and dated 24th of 
May, "from Upper Norfolk in Virginia." They bewailed 
their " sad condition for the want of the means of salvation," 
and earnestly entreated a " supply of faithful ministers, whom 
upon experience of their gifts and godliness they might call to 
office." After a day spent in special prayer the elders decided 
to respond to the appeal and selected three ministers. Those 
who consented to go were John Knowles of Watertown, 
William Thompson of Braintree, and Thomas James of New 
Haven. The General Court was made acquainted with the 
decision of the elders, which it approved, and on the 8th of 



1 Colonel William Byrd, History of the Dividing Line between Virginia and 
North Carolina, p. 42. 



163] Expulsion of the Puritans from Virginia. 41 

September, the Governor was ordered to commend the ministers 
to the Governor and Council of Virginia. 1 

The voyage proved a difficult one. They were wrecked off 
Hellgate and the Dutch Governor gave them " slender enter- 
tainment," but Isaac Allerton of New Haven, who happened 
to be there, provided them with a new pinnace and they were 
enabled to continue their voyage. After encountering " much 
foul weather " they reached Virginia eleven weeks after leav- 
ing Narragansett. Winthrop says that the dangers and diffi- 
culties which continually beset them made them seriously 
doubt whether they were called of God or not, but they were 
kindly received in Virginia, not by the Governor, "but by 
some well-disposed people who desired their company." 

The letters commending them to Governor Berkeley might 
as well have been left behind, for at the first meeting of the 
Assembly, March 1643, the following act was directed against 
them. " For the preservation of the purity of doctrine and 
unity of the Church, it is enacted that all ministers whatsoever, 
which shall reside in the colony, are to be conformed to the 
orders and constitution of the Church of England, and not 
otherwise to be admitted to teach or preach publicly or 
privately, and that the Governor and Council do take care that 
all non-conformists, upon notice of them, shall be compelled 
to depart the colony with all convenience." 2 

Governor Berkeley issued a proclamation in accordance with 
this act which effectually silenced the Massachusetts preachers 
and compelled them to leave the colony. James and Knowles 
were the first to go. Knowles reached Boston the latter part 
of April. He reported that their efforts had been attended 
with great success, and that " though the State did silence the 
ministers, because they would not conform to the order of 
England, yet the people resorted to them in private houses to 
hear them as before." Thompson was the last to leave. 



1 Winthrop's Journal, Mather's Magnolia, and Johnson's Wonder-working 
Providence. 2 Hening, I, 277. 



42 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [164 

Cotton Mather chronicles the success in Virginia in a quaint 
poem, one stanza of which is as follows : 

"A constellation of great converts there 

Shone round him, and his heavenly glory were ; 
Gookin was one of them ; by Thompson's pains, 
Christ and New England a dear Gookin gains." 

The reference is to Daniel Gookin, Jr., whose father was 
the head of the Puritan settlement in Nansemond. Young 
Gookin, thus converted under Thompson's preaching, left 
Virginia the following year, and went to New England, where 
he soon became a man of prominence. 1 

On the 17th of April, 1644, about a year after the expul- 
sion of the New England ministers, occurred the second great 
massacre in the history of Virginia. The Indians, taking 
advantage of the disorder occasioned by the civil war in 
England, determined upon a general and concerted massacre 
of the whites. It is intimated by some historians that they 
were incited to this act by certain parties who were dissatisfied 
with Berkeley's rule, presumably the Puritans, but there is no 
foundation for such a suggestion. The Governor had set 
apart Good Friday, April 18, as a special day of prayer for 
the success of the King's party. Just on the eve of this fast- 
day the Indians made their attack, which was entirely unex- 
pected, and about 300 colonists were killed. Winthrop 
remarks that it is very observable that this calamity befell the 
Virginians shortly after they had driven out the godly min- 
isters from New England. 

Lord Baltimore, in view of these troubles and of the atti- 
tude of the Virginia government towards dissenters, made 
known through Captain Edward Gibbons, a Boston merchant 



1 Gookin resided at Cambridge and represented that town in the General 
Court. In 1651 he was Speaker of the House of Deputies, and for more 
than 30 years he was Superintendent of Indian Affairs, with the title of 
Major-General. He died March 19, 1687, aged 75. He was the author of 
a history of the Indians. 



Expulsion of the Puritans from Virginia. 43 



who traded with the southern colonies, that any nonconform- 
ists would be welcomed in Maryland and guaranteed religious 
freedom. It is not probable that any availed themselves of 
the invitation at this time. 

One of the most remarkable results of the massacre, if we 
may give full credence to the accounts that have come down 
to us, was the spiritual change which it wrought in Rev. 
Thomas Harrison, Governor Berkeley's chaplain. " After 
this visitation of Providence he became quite another man." 
He expressed his regret " with sorrow and concern " that, 
while he had openly encouraged the New England preachers, 
he had secretly used his influence with the Governor against 
them. But the Governor became " the more hardened and 
dismissed his chaplain, who was now grown too serious for 
him." 1 Upon this Harrison crossed over the James and took 
the place of the preachers he had helped to expel in minister- 
ing to the spiritual wants of the Nansemond Puritans. The 
Governor issued special orders against his refractory chaplain, 
and as a last resort swore at him, but all in vain. Harrison 
could not be turned aside from his purpose and he continued 
to preach to the people. 

Just at this time Berkeley was called to England, where 
the civil war was at its height. When he returned to Vir- 
gin^ after a year's absence he found that colony on the verge 
of a revolution. Mathews and Claiborne had declared for 
Parliament. Claiborne and Ingle were in possession of Mary- 
land, and Governor Calvert was a fugitive in Virginia. After 
assisting Calvert to regain his lost province, Berkeley once 
more turned his attention to Harrison and the Puritan settle- 
ment south of the James. 

On the 3d of November, 1647, another act was passed 
against nonconformists. " Upon diverse information presented 
to this Assembly against several ministers for their neglects 



3 Calamy, Nonconformists' Memorial, III, 174. 



* 



44 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [166 

and refractory refusing after warning given them to read 
Common Prayer or Divine Service upon Sabbath days ... it 
is enacted that all ministers in their several cures throughout 
the colony do duly upon every Sabbath day read such prayers 
as are appointed and prescribed unto them by the said Book 
of Common Prayer." 1 

The Puritans had felt for some time that their position was 
insecure and had seriously considered the question of leaving 
Virginia. Several letters on this subject had passed between 
Harrison and Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts. Under 
date of November 2, 1646, from Elizabeth River, Harrison 
writes : " Had your propositions found us risen up, and in a 
posture of removing, there is weight, and worth, and force 
enough in them to have staked us down again." In a second 
letter dated Nansemond, November 14, 1647, a few days after 
the passage of the act above cited, he says : " 74 have joined 
here in fellowship, 19 stand propounded, and many more of 
great hopes and expectations." 2 Evidently the act of the 
Assembly had not disconcerted them. 

The next year, however, the Governor made another attempt 
to uproot this nest of dissenters. William Durand, an elder 
in the Nansemond church, and Richard Bennett were banished. 
They took refuge in Maryland. Harrison was also ordered 
to depart the colony by the third ship at furthest. He went 
to Boston to take advice of the elders there as to the best 
course for the Virginia Puritans to pursue. He reached there 
on the 20th of August, 1648, and reported that the Nansemond 
church had grown to 118 members and that by conjecture 
fully 1000 others were of like mind. He also stated that 
many of the Virginia Council were favorably disposed toward 
Puritanism. 3 



1 Hening, I, 341. 

2 Massachusetts Historical Collections, Ser. IV, Vol. VII, 434. 

3 Savage's Winthrop, II, 407. 



Expulsion of the Puritans from Virginia. 45 



Meanwhile the Virginia Puritans had been invited by 
Captain William Sayle, afterward Governor of South Caro- 
lina, to join him in a Puritan settlement which he had begun 
in the Bahamas. But they " being very orthodox and zeal- 
ous for the truth/' as Winthrop informs us, would not decide 
the matter without advice from New England. Winthrop 
advised them strongly against leaving Virginia, " seeing that 
God had carried on his work so graciously hitherto, and that 
there was so great hope of a far more plentiful harvest at 
hand." 

Harrison returned to Virginia for a short time during the 
winter of 1649, but was soon in Boston again. 1 His congre- 
gation meanwhile petitioned the Council of State in England 
for his reinstatement, and on the 11th of October, 1649, an 
order was sent to the Governor of Virginia. 

" Sir : We are informed by the petition of some of the 
people of the congregation of Nansemond in Virginia that 
they had long enjoyed the benefit of the ministry of Mr. 
Harrison, who is an able man and of unblamable conversa- 
tion, who hath been banished by you for no other cause but 
for that he would not conform himself to the use of the Com- 
mon Prayer Book. We know that you cannot be ignorant 
that the use of the Common Prayer Book is prohibited by the 
Parliament of England, and therefore you are hereby required 
to permit the same Mr. Harrison to return to his said congre- 
gation to the exercise of his ministry, unless there be suffi- 
cient cause as shall be approved of the Parliament or this 
Council when the same shall be represented unto us. Of 
your compliance herein we expect to receive an account from 
yourself of the first opportunity. " 2 This letter came too late 
to be of any service, even if the old Cavalier Governor had 
been disposed to pay any attention to an order of Parliament. 



1 Massachusetts Historical Collections, Ser. IV, Vol. VII, 436. 
2 Sainsbury Papers, 1640-1691, p. 19, in the Virginia State Library. 
Briggs, American Presbyterianism, app. VI. 



46 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [168 



By the time it reached Virginia the greater part of Harrison's 
congregation had moved to Maryland. 1 

The government of that province had been reorganized 
the year before on a Protestant basis. Leonard Calvert had 
died in June 1647, a few months after he had succeeded, with 
the assistance of Governor Berkeley, in reestablishing him- 
self at St. Mary's. Upon his death bed he appointed Thomas 
Greene, a Catholic, to succeed him as Governor. Meanwhile 
Lord Baltimore, like a great many other Catholic noblemen, 
had turned Parliamentarian, in the hope that, with the over- 
throw of the Royalists and the Established Church, the Cath- 
olics would receive recognition and be allowed the free exer- 
cise of their religion. His position, however, was at best 
insecure, and in order to make sure of his province he reor- 
ganized it by the appointment of a Protestant Governor and 
Secretary, with a Protestant majority in the Council. 2 Wil- 
liam Stone, formerly of Northampton County in Virginia, was 
appointed Governor by a commission dated August 6, 1648. 



1 Harrison is a most interesting character. Calamy (Nonconformists' 
Memorial, I, 330) says that Harrison was born at Kingston-upon-Hull and 
brought up in New England. The fact of his being Governor Berkeley's 
chaplain would seem to render this improbable. He was probably raised 
in Virginia, where there were several families of the name at an early date. 
After leaving Virginia he went to Boston. Here he married Dorothy 
Symonds, a cousin of Gov. Winthrop, and in a short time went to London, 
where he attained great distinction as a preacher. He did not, however, 
forget his old congregation, for on the 28th of July, 1652, he addressed to 
the Council of State a petition " on behalf of some well-affected inhabitants 
of Virginia and Maryland." When Henry Cromwell was appointed Lord 
Lieutenant of Ireland, Harrison entered his service as chaplain, and upon 
the death of the Lord Protector he preached a funeral sermon before a 
large gathering in Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin. At the Kestoration 
he returned to England, but was soon silenced by the Act of Uniformity, 
upon which he went back to Dublin and exercised his ministry as a dissen- 
ter, having a " flourishing congregation and many persons of quality for 
his constant auditors." 

2 Bozman, History of Maryland, 333. 



169] Expulsion of the Puritans from Virginia. 47 



About this time Richard Bennett and William Durand were 
banished from Virginia and took refuge in Maryland. At 
their solicitation Governor Stone invited the Nansemond 
congregation to his province, and within the next year fully 
300 Puritans migrated from the lower James to Maryland 
and settled on the Severn near the present site of Annapolis. 
They called their settlement Providence. 1 The movement did 
not take place all at once. A few families went during the 
spring and summer of 1649, and the others followed in the 
fall. The supremacy of the Puritan party in England had 
produced little effect upon Governor Berkeley, who remained 
a staunch Royalist to the end. It is probable that the execu- 
tion of Charles I. had produced somewhat of a reaction in 
Virginia. The inhabitants of that colony had in the main 
been well treated by the Stuarts, and they were not prepared 
for such extreme measures as their brethren at home, who had 
experienced all the horrors and excitement of a long civil war. 
In addition to this a number of Cavaliers came to the 
colony about this time, one ship alone, in September 1649, 
briDging over as many as 330. These, of course, had great 
influence in shaping public sentiment. Under these circum- 
stances Berkeley, knowing that Parliament was too much 
occupied for the present with domestic affairs to interfere with 
him, continued his persecution of the Puritans, and in October, 
1649, an act was passed condemning the execution of Charles 
and declaring that any one, who should undertake to defend 
the " late traiterous proceedings " against the King, should be 
adjudged accessory post factum to his death. 2 Upon the 
passage of this act those Puritans who were still wavering in 
their decision quickly left the colony. In Maryland they 
were granted a large tract of land, local government, and 
religious freedom. 



1 For the further history of this settlement see, "A Puritan Colony in 
Maryland," by Daniel K. Eandall, J. H. U. Studies, 4th Series, No. VI, 1886. 

2 Hening, I, 359. 



48 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [170 

It had been the policy of the Maryland government, or 
rather of the Lord Proprietary, from the first to admit 
Protestant settlers on equal terms with Catholics. The credit 
of this toleration has been claimed by Catholics and Protestants 
alike. Whatever credit is due to any one is due to the Lord 
Proprietary, Cecilius Calvert. He, however, adhered to this 
policy for political and economic and not for religious reasons. 
It may be reasonably doubted whether the exclusion of 
Protestants from an English colony would have been allowed 
under any circumstances. At any rate he did not attempt it. 
Although toleration had been the policy of the government 
from the start, it was not guaranteed by any formal document 
until the appointment of Stone, the first Protestant Governor, 
in 1648. In the oath required of him is the following clause : 
" I do further swear that I will not by myself nor any person 
directly or indirectly trouble, molest or discountenance any 
person whatsoever in the said Province professing to believe 
in Jesus Christ and in particular no Roman Catholic for or 
in respect of his or her religion." 1 This principle was also 
embodied in the famous Act Concerning Religion passed by 
the Assembly on the 21st day of April, 1649. It tolerated 
only those who believed in Jesus Christ. Those who denied 
the divinity of Christ or the doctrine of the Trinity were to be 
punished with death and the forfeiture of estates. It is 
probable that a majority of this Assembly were Protestants. 2 
The act, however, did not originate with the Assembly, but 
was passed in exactly the form in which it was submitted by 
the Proprietary. This Assembly was held shortly before the 
settlement of the Puritans at Providence, and so they had 
nothing to do with it. They, however, very quickly rose to 
political prominence. At the very next Assembly, April 1650, 
James Cox, one of the two burgesses sent from Providence 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 209. 
2 JBozman, History of Maryland, II, 354. 



171] Puritan Supremacy in Virginia and Maryland. 49 

was elected Speaker. The Protestants were now decidedly in 
the majority, both in the Assembly and in the colony at large. 

III. 

Puritan Supremacy in Virginia and Maryland. 

It was not until toward the close of the year 1650 that the 
Parliament of England found itself sufficiently free from the 
more urgent demands of domestic affairs to take any steps 
towards settling the government of the colonies. In October 
1650, an act was passed prohibiting all trade or intercourse 
with Virginia or the West Indies for their " divers acts of 
rebellion/' and the Council of State was given power to send 
ships to any of the plantations aforesaid and u to enforce all 
such to obedience, as stand in opposition to the Parliament." 
The term Virginia was still used in a very broad and indefi- 
nite sense as applying to any of the American colonies, and 
the expression Maryland in Virginia frequently occurs in 
documents of this period. The fears of Lord Baltimore were 
very naturally aroused at the prospect of commissioners being 
appointed to settle the affairs of the colonies, especially as 
Charles II. had been proclaimed King in Maryland, as well 
as in Barbadoes and Virginia, although it had been done 
without his knowledge or approval. He now found himself 
in an extremely awkward position. On the one hand he had 
incurred the resentment of the King, because he " did visibly 
adhere to the rebels in England, and admitted all kinds of 
sectaries and ill affected persons into his plantation." For 
these reasons his charter was annulled, so far as Charles had 
power to do so, and Sir William Davenant, the poet, was 
appointed Royal Governor of Maryland. On the other hand 
he was not quite sure of his position with Parliament, and 
reports were being circulated in his province to the effect 
that the proprietary government was about to be dissolved. 
These reports caused such uneasiness that the Puritans of 
4 



50 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [172 

Providence, who had taken a very prominent part in the 
Assembly of 1650, refused to send delegates to the one to be 
held in 1651, saying that they preferred to await the action 
of Parliament. About the same time Governor Berkeley, 
who no doubt was the informant of his Majesty in regard to 
the conduct of Lord Baltimore in admitting " all kinds ot 
sectaries and ill affected persons into his plantation," seems to 
have considered that province a fit place for encroachments, 
now that his Majesty had recalled the charter, and authorized 
Edward Scarborough of Accomac County to take possession 
of Palmer's Island, a very desirable trading post at the mouth 
of the Susquehannah, formerly held by Claiborne. 

Baltimore, however, was determined not to let the control 
of his province pass from his hands without a struggle. It 
required all the influence he could bring to bear upon the 
Council of State to prevent the name of Maryland from being 
inserted in the commissions about to be issued for the reduction 
of the colonies to the authority of Parliament. He was, how- 
ever, prepared for the issue. The protection which had been 
extended to the Puritans, and the act of toleration passed by 
the Assembly in 1649, now stood him in good stead. He 
went before the committee with a certified declaration from 
the principal Protestants in his province to the effect that they 
enjoyed entire freedom and liberty in the exercise of their re- 
ligion. The declaration was signed by the Governor and the 
three Protestant members of the Council, eight burgesses, and 
upwards of forty inhabitants of the colony. 1 He also disowned 
the act of Greene in recognition of Charles II, and adduced 
the evidence of several Protestant merchants to show that 
Maryland neither was nor had been in opposition to Parlia- 
ment. The amount of political sagacity and shrewdness, 
which he displayed in reorganizing his province on a Protest- 
ant basis and recognizing by statute the principle of religious 



1 Bozman, History of Maryland, II, 672, where the declaration is given 
in full. 



173] Puritan Supremacy in Virginia and Maryland. 51 

toleration just as the top wave of the great Puritan revolution 
was carrying everything before it, is truly remarkable. He 
was in a measure successful ; the name of Maryland was stricken 
out, but in the final form in which the instructions were issued 
a circumlocution was used which practically included it. The 
paragraph alluded to is as follows : " Upon your arrival at 
Virginia you or any two or more of you shall use your best 
endeavors to reduce all the plantations within the Bay of 
Chesopiack to their due obedience to the Parliament of the 
Commonwealth of England." 1 This, of course, by any reason- 
able construction would be taken to include Maryland. 

The commissioners named to carry out these instructions 
were Captain Robert Denis, an officer in the Navy, who was 
put in command of the fleet, Thomas Stagge, Richard Bennett, 
and William Claiborne. In case of the death or absence of 
Captain Denis, Captain Edmund Curtis, commander of the 
frigate Guinea, was instructed to act as commissioner and 
take charge of the expedition. Bennett and Claiborne, who 
were in Virginia at the time, probably knew nothing of their 
appointment until the expedition arrived there. 

The other commissioners embarked on board two ships, 
with a force of 750 men, towards the latter part of September, 
1651. On the voyage out, the ship which bore Denis and 
Stagge with the original commission was lost. Curtis, upon 
whom the command now devolved, and who had a copy of the 
instructions, continued the voyage, touching at Barbadoes. 
Here he found that Sir George Ayscue, who had been sent 
out several months before to reduce that island, was still 
held in check by the inhabitants. After assisting him to force 
them to surrender, Captain Curtis sailed for Virginia and 
arrived before Jamestown early in March, 1652. 

Governor Berkeley, who had learned of the approach of the 
frigate, had made active preparations for resistance and was no 
doubt sincere in his intentions. He had distributed muskets 



1 Thurloe State Papers, I, 197. 



52 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [174 

among the inhabitants of Jamestown and manned some Dutch 
ships that happened to be in the harbor. The maritime policy 
of England at this time was largely directed towards breaking 
up the carrying trade of the Dutch, and one of the chief objects 
in sending the expedition against the colonies was to suppress 
the illicit exportation of tobacco in Dutch ships, which, in 
spite of all restrictions, had greatly increased during the con- 
tinuance of the civil war in England. These ships were thus 
very willing to render their assistance to Governor Berkeley. 
Before carrying out such warlike measures, however, a con- 
ference was held, the Assembly was summoned, and the 
Virginians quietly decided to submit to the authority of the 
Commonwealth of England. 

The articles of surrender between the commissioners of 
Parliament and the Assembly of Virginia were concluded and 
signed, March 12, 1652. The Virginians obtained the most 
liberal terms from the commissioners. The most important 
provisions were that the act of submission should be considered 
voluntary and not forced by conquest, that there should be 
full indemnity for all past acts against Parliament, that those 
who refused to submit should have a year in which to remove 
themselves and their property from the colony, and that the 
use of the Book of Common Prayer should be permitted for 
one year. 1 The fourth article is of special interest to us : 
" That Virginia shall have and enjoy the ancient bounds and 
limits granted by the charters of the former Kings, and that 
we shall seek a new charter from the Parliament to that 
purpose against any that have intrenched upon the rights 
thereof." This, of course, was a blow at Maryland. The 
articles were signed by Richard Bennett, William Claiborne, 
and Edmund Curtis. 

Various attempts have been made, under the impression 
that the Virginians at this time were all Cavaliers, to explain 
this seemingly unaccountable conduct of Governor Berkeley 



1 Hening, I, 363. 



175] Puritan Supremacy in Virginia and Maryland. 53 

in surrendering the colony at the bidding of a single frigate. 
There is not the slightest mystery involved in the matter. 
The general misapprehension in regard to this surrender and 
the provisional government afterward established, is due to 
the fact that the strong Puritan element in the colony has 
been entirely overlooked. The more radical dissenters had, 
indeed, been driven out by Governor Berkeley, but there 
remained behind a large and influential class, who were Puri- 
tans in politics if not in religion. The Cavalier immigration, 
which has given such a romantic tinge to the entire colonial 
period, had scarcely begun at this time. Bennett was the 
leading spirit among the dissenters while Claiborne and 
Mathews, although not identified with the Puritans in relig- 
ion, had all along been the leaders of the popular party, hav- 
ing brought about the insurrection under Governor Harvey 
and deposed him from office, and furthermore both had 
declared for Parliament in 1644. Under these circumstances 
it is not strange that the assembly should have forced Gover- 
nor Berkeley to surrender the government into the hands of 
Bennett and Claiborne, and that such liberal terms were 
agreed upon. 

After the settlement of Virginia, the commissioners pro- 
ceeded to St. Mary's to require from the Maryland govern- 
ment the formal recognition of their authority. This was 
done in pursuance of the instructions given them to reduce 
all the plantations within the Bay of Chesapeake to the author- 
ity of Parliament. This clause certainly justified them in 
considering Maryland within -the scope of their commission, 
whatever may have been the intention of the Council of State 
in England. Captains Denis and Stagge, the only two of the 
commissioners who had been present when the instructions 
were issued, were lost on the way out. Curtis, Bennett, and 
Claiborne had therefore received no verbal instructions, but 
were governed solely by the written ones. It has been stated 
by most of the Maryland historians that Bennett and Clai- 
borne took advantage of the powers loosely defined in their 



54 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [176 

instructions to usurp control of the government of Mary- 
land in order to give Claiborne an opportunity to settle his 
old score with Lord Baltimore. There seems no justification 
whatever for such an opinion. Captain Curtis, the Com- 
mander of the expedition, who had no connection with the 
colonies and hence no personal interests involved, interpreted 
the instructions as including Maryland, and it was in his ship 
and under his command that Bennett and Claiborne first went 
there. Their action was subsequently confirmed by the 
authorities in England. 

Furthermore, Claiborne had nothing to expect in the way 
of support or recognition of his claims to Kent Island from 
the Puritans of Providence. He had never been identified 
with the Puritan dissenters. This is shown by the fact that 
the Assembly of 1650, which was largely Puritan, and of 
which James Cox, one of the burgesses from Providence was 
Speaker, passed an act prohibiting all compliance with Clai- 
borne under penalty of death and confiscation of property. 1 
The year before Claiborne had had some correspondence with 
Governor Stone in regard to Kent Island. 

When they reached St. Mary's the commissioners simply 
required a formal submission on the part of the Governor 
and Council "so as that they might remain in their places 
conforming themselves to the laws of the Commonwealth of 
England in point of government only and not infringing the 
Lord Baltimore's just rights." In conformity with the laws 
of England the commissioners demanded that they should 
subscribe to the engagement "to be true and faithful to the 
Commonwealth of England as it is now established without 
King or House of Lords," and that all writs and warrants 
should be issued in the name of the Keepers of the Liberty of 
England. To the first of these demands the Governor and 
Council responded that they were perfectly willing to agree, 
but in regard to the second, as writs and warrants had always 



1 Maryland Archives, Assembly Proceedings, I, 287. 



177] Puritan Supremacy in Virginia and Maryland. 55 

been issued in the name of the Lord Proprietary and not in 
the King's name, they would not consent to the change. As 
Governor Stone persisted in his refusal to submit to these de- 
mands, and the commissioners had no power to deviate from 
their instructions in this particular, Stone was deprived of 
his commission, and by a proclamation, issued on the 29th 
of March, the government of the province was vested in a 
Council, consisting of Robert Brooke, Esq., Colonel Francis 
Yardley, Mr. Job Chandler, Captain Edward Windham, Mr. 
Richard Preston, and Lieutenant Richard Banks. 1 The com- 
missioners then returned to Virginia to meet the Assembly 
which they had summoned before going to Maryland. 

The Assembly met on the 30th of April, 1652. Bennett 
was elected Governor and Claiborne was restored to his old 
place as Secretary of State. Under the provisional govern- 
ment the Governor and other officers were elected by the 
Assembly. 2 Bennett was succeeded as Governor in 1655 by 
Edward Diggs. Diggs in turn was succeeded in 1656 by 
Samuel Mathews, who continued in office until his death in 
1660. Claiborne continued as Secretary throughout the whole 
Commonwealth regime. 

As soon as the affairs of the two colonies were thus satis- 
factorily settled, Captain Edmond Curtis returned to England 
with the frigate. Thus the two remaining commissioners, 
Bennett and Claiborne, were left in undisputed control of both 
colonies. Bennett was Governor of the colony from which 
he had so recently been expelled as a dissenter, and Claiborne, 
by a strange turn of fortune, found himself in virtual control 
of the province of his old rival, from which he had been 
banished years before as a traitor and convict. Both appear 
to have acted with singular moderation. Bennett, who more 
than any one else had reason for feelings of personal enmity 
to Berkeley, seems not to have displayed the least resentment. 
Berkeley was allowed to retire to his private plantation, where 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, J, 275. 



2 Hening, I, 371. 



56 



Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [178 



he remained not only during the prescribed year but all 
through the period of the provisional government, and this 
in spite of the fact that he did not take the oath of allegiance 
to the Commonwealth. Claiborne, on the other hand, in spite 
of the fact that all the civil disturbances between Catholics 
and Protestants which followed in Maryland have been fathered 
upon him, appears to have had very little to do with the 
affairs of that province. From a careful examination of the 
records, it appears that he was in Maryland only twice after 
the reduction of that province, and upon both of those 
occasions in company with Bennett in the legitimate discharge 
of his duties as commissioner. He seems to have devoted 
himself to the duties of his office as secretary and to the affairs 
of his plantation on the Pamunkey. There is nothing 
whatever to show that he interfered with the affairs of Kent 
Island at this period. The only mention of his name in that 
connection occurs in a treaty negotiated with the Indians, 
July 5, 1652, which speaks of "the Isle of Kent and 
Palmer's Island which belong to Captain Claiborne." This 
paper was signed by Richard Bennett and four others 
appointed by the Governor and Council of Maryland to 
negotiate the treaty, and it may be that Bennett had this 
clause inserted as a mere assertion of Claiborne's claim. There 
is positive evidence, on the other hand, that the government of 
the island continued subordinate to the Maryland authorities. 1 
Towards the latter part of June, about two months after 
the departure of Captain Curtis, Bennett and Claiborne re- 
turned to Maryland. If they had usurped control of that 
province with sinister intentions through a misconstruction of 
powers, as has been so often stated, we would naturally expect 
to find them exercising their power in an arbitrary way, now 
that they were left without any check upon their authority. 
But their conduct was the very reverse. When they reached 
St. Mary's they found that Governor Stone, whom they had 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 290, 291. 



179] Puritan Supremacy in Virginia and Maryland. 57 

deposed from office on their first visit, had reconsidered the 
matter and was now willing to accede to their demands and to 
agree to issue all writs in the name of the Keepers of the 
Liberties of England. They immediately reinstated him in his 
office and also reappointed Lord Baltimore's former Secretary, 
Thomas Hatton, by a proclamation of June 28, 1652. 1 

For a while affairs went on smoothly in Maryland, but 
towards the close of the year 1653 the relations between Stone 
and the Puritans of Providence became very strained. Stone 
imposed new oaths upon them and arbitrarily dismissed several 
of them from office. On the 3d of January, 1654, a petition 
was addressed to the commissioners by the Puritans complain- 
ing of their grievances, especially the oath, saying : " This 
oath we consider not agreeable to the terms on which we came 
hither, nor to the liberty of our consciences as Christians and 
free subjects of the Commonwealth of England." 2 To this 
petition Bennett and plaiborne replied by letter telling them 
to remain in obedience to the Commonwealth of England. 
On the 1st of March a second petition was presented to the 
commissioners, to which they returned a like reply. About 
the same time, Stone, in direct violation of his agreement with 
them, issued a proclamation saying that henceforth all writs 
should be issued in the name of the Lord Proprietary as 
formerly. He did this at the direction of Lord Baltimore. 
This act brought Bennett and Claiborne to Maryland once 
more. On the 4th of July Stone issued a proclamation in 
which he charged the commissioners with leading the people 
" into faction, sedition, and rebellion against Lord Baltimore," 
and prepared to resist their authority. The commissioners, 
at the head of a party of Puritans from Providence and Pa- 
tuxent, then advanced towards St. Mary's and Stone consented 
to resign the government. By proclamation of July 22, 1654, 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 275. 

2 Virginia and Maryland, or Lord Baltimore's Case Answered, &c. Force 
Tracts, II, 28. 



58 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [180 

the government of the province was again vested in a Council 
with William Fuller at the head. The commissioners ordered 
an Assembly to be summoned to meet on the 20th of October, 
" For which Assembly all such shall be disabled to give any 
vote or to be elected members thereof as have borne arms in 
war against the Parliament or do profess the Roman Catholic 
religion." 1 This was the last act of the commissioners in 
Maryland. Cromwell approved their conduct in settling the 
civil government of Maryland by a letter dated September 26, 
1655 : "It seems to us by yours of the 29th of June and by 
the relation we received by Colonel Bennett that some mistake 
or scruple hath arisen concerning the sense of our letters of 
the 12th of January last ; as if by our letters we had intimated 
that we would have a stop put to the proceedings of those 
commissioners, who were authorized to settle the civil govern- 
ment of Maryland, which was not at all intended by us, nor 
so much as proposed to us by those who made addresses to us 
to obtain our said letter ; but our intention (as our said letter 
doth plainly import) was only to prevent and forbid any force 
or violence to be offered, by either of the plantations of Vir- 
ginia or Maryland from one to the other upon the differences 
concerning their bounds, the said differences being then under 
the consideration of ourself and Council here ; which for your 
more full satisfaction we have thought fit to signify to you." 2 
The boundary dispute referred to was over the location of 
Watkins 7 Point. 

The Puritan Assembly which met in October, 1654, passed 
an act concerning religion, by which toleration of the Catholic 
religion was withdrawn. 3 This act was copied almost bodily 
from the one passed in England shortly before. 

When Lord Baltimore heard that Stone had again surren- 
dered the government of the province, he wrote a letter to 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 311. 

2 Thurloe State Papers, IV, 55. 

3 Maryland Archives, Proceedings of the Assembly, I, 340. 



181] Puritan Supremacy in Virginia and Maryland. 59 

him upbraiding him for his conduct and commanding him to 
take control of the .government again. Upon this Stone 
gathered together his forces and marched against the Provi- 
dence settlement. A battle was fought on the Severn, March 
25th, 1655, in which the Puritans, under Fuller, were com- 
pletely successful, and Stone and most of his followers taken 
prisoners. 1 This left the Puritans in undisputed control of 
the province. 

In July 1656, Lord Baltimore appointed Josias Fendall 
Governor, but he was Governor only in name. The Puritans 
continued in control of the province until the agreement with 
Lord Baltimore, November 30th, 1657. 

Meanwhile the Virginians had been using every effort, 
through their agent in England, Samuel Mathews, to prevent 
the government of Maryland from being again placed in the 
hands of Lord Baltimore, and even attempted to have his 
charter revoked. In the first instance the matter was referred 
by the Council of State to a Committee of the Navy, who 
reported on the 31st of December, 1652, favorably to the 
claims of Claiborne and the Virginians. 2 This report was 
never acted upon. For the next five years a very bitter paper 
warfare was waged between Lord Baltimore on the one hand 
and the agents of the colony of Virginia on the other. No 
new points were brought out on either side. Lord Baltimore 
prepared his " Reasons of State Concerning Maryland in 
America," an attempt to show that it was to the advantage of 
the Commonwealth of England that Maryland should continue 
a separate government from Virginia, and the agents of Vir- 
ginia set forth their " Objections against Lord Baltimore's 
Patent, and Reasons why the Government of Maryland should 
not be put in his hands," claiming (1) that the Maryland 
charter was an infringement of the rights of the colony of 



1 Bozman, History of Maryland, II, 524. 

a Virginia and Maryland, or Lord Baltimore's Case Answered, etc., p. 20. 
Force Tracts, Vol. 2. 



60 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [182 

Virginia, (2) that it comprehended only unsettled lands, 
whereas Kent Island had been settled under the Virginia 
Government " before the name of Maryland was ever heard 
of," and (3) that Lord Baltimore was a Catholic and a Royalist. 
Numerous other documents to the same effect appeared on 
both sides. 1 

In 1655, Bennett was sent over to England to assist Mathews 
in his attack upon the Maryland charter. He was succeeded 
as Governor by Diggs. The following year Diggs was also 
sent to England, and Mathews was elected to succeed him. 
Mathews was still in England at this time and he seems to 
have remained there until November, 1657, when the contro- 
versy was finally concluded and Lord Baltimore allowed to 
assume control of his province once more. 

This agreement was brought about in a rather strange way. 
Cromwell seems to have paid very little attention to the com- 
plaints and petitions of either party. They were all referred 
to the Council of State and Board of Trade, but there seemed 
no likelihood of a decision. The Protector was rather inclined 
at this time to cultivate the good will of the Catholic Peers, 
who were none of them very zealous Royalists. The agents 
of Virginia, under these circumstances, seem to have despaired 
of accomplishing the destruction of Lord Baltimore's proprie- 
tary rights, and to have thought it best to come to an agree- 
ment with him on the best terms they could secure for their 
Puritan brethren in Maryland without waiting for a decision 
from the Council of State. Bennett and Mathews thus ceased 
to act in their capacity as agents for the Virginia government, 
and in the negotiations which followed acted as the representa- 
tives of the Maryland Puritans. The settlement seems to have 
been brought about through the influence of Diggs, who acted 
as intermediary between the two parties in negotiating the 
terms. A formal paper was drawn up and signed on the 30th 



1 Thurloe State Papers, V, 482-487 ; Hazard, Collection of State Papers, I, 
620-630. 



183] Puritan Supremacy in Virginia and Maryland. 61 

of November, 1657, by Lord Baltimore, on the one side, and 
Bennett and Mathews on the other, in the presence of Edward 
Diggs, and others. The terms of the settlement were as follows : 
(1) Lord Baltimore was not to call in question any act com- 
mitted since the disturbances in the province began ; (2) the 
people in opposition were to have patents for such land as they 
could claim under Lord Baltimore's conditions of plantation ; 
and (3) Lord Baltimore promised never to give his consent to 
the repeal of the act of 1649, whereby all persons professing 
belief in Jesus Christ were allowed freedom of conscience. 1 

The Maryland Puritans accepted these terms and Puritan 
supremacy in Maryland came to an end. 

There were no civil disturbances in Virginia under the 
provisional government. In January, 1660, Governor 
Mathews died. Richard Cromwell had resigned the Protec- 
torate several months before. There was no ruler in England 
and no governor in Virginia. There had been a reaction in 
both countries and in March, 1660, two months before the 
Restoration in England, Governor Berkeley was called upon to 
undertake once more the government of the colony, this time 
by election of the House of Burgesses. Charles II was pro- 
claimed King in Virginia in October, 1660, 2 and not before 
the Restoration as has been sometimes stated. 

Under her Puritan Governors Virginia reached a high 
pitch of prosperity, and at the time of the Restoration pos- 
sessed free-trade, universal suffrage and religious freedom. 
This prosperity, however, was short-lived. Upon the Restor- 
ation the Navigation Act was enforced, the suffrage again 
limited, and severe laws against dissenters enacted. 

After the settlement with Lord Baltimore the Virginians 
seem to have become reconciled to the loss of territory invol- 
ved in the Maryland grant, and the two colonies settled down 
into relations of cordial friendship, which have seldom been 



1 Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, I, 332. 
* Hening, I, 526, f. n. 



62 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia, [184 

interrupted, except in a local way over boundary disputes. 
Claiborne was compensated to some extent for his losses in 
Maryland by grants of land at various times from the Vir- 
ginia government, which amounted in the aggregate to more 
than 20,000 acres. But he never recovered from the sense of 
injustice received at the hands of the Maryland authorities. 
This is illustrated by the following incident. 

In January 1677, the commissioners who had been sent 
over to Virginia to compose the disturbances growing out of 
Bacon's rebellion, wrote to his Majesty that the independent 
provinces of Maryland and North Carolina were very pre- 
judicial to his Majesty's interests in Virginia, and recom- 
mended that the government of those provinces might be 
assumed by his Majesty. 1 This seems to have kindled once 
more a spark of hope in the breast of Claiborne, who was 
now approaching the close of his life, and in March, 1677, he 
laid his claims before the commissioners, enclosing almost all 
the papers relating to the controversy. At the same time the 
Virginia Assembly, in an address to the King, stating their 
grievances, urged the cause of Claiborne's petition, showing : 
" that the Island of Kent in Maryland, granted to, seated and 
planted, by Colonel Claiborne, Sen., formerly a limb and 
member of Virginia (as may appear by our records, they 
having sent delegates to this assembly, and divers other 
Indian proofs and evidences), is since lopt off and detained 
from us by Lord Baltimore." 

The commissioners referred Claiborne's petition to the 
King, as not being within their powers to decide, since it 
concerned another province, and we hear nothing further of it. 

Shortly after this Claiborne died in New Kent County, 
Virginia, where he had settled more than twenty years before, 
receiving a large grant of land from the Assembly on the 
Pamunkey River. He organized the county and named it New 
Kent in remembrance of his old settlement in the Chesapeake. 



1 Burk, History of Virginia, II, 259. 



185] Puritan Supremacy in Virginia and Maryland. 63 

While it was ordained that the interests of one man should 
be sacrificed to the future of a great and prosperous common- 
wealth, we cannot help recognizing the strength of Claiborne's 
claims and admiring the resolution and persistency with which 
he defended them. He was thoroughly convinced of the justice 
of his cause and received for a long time the encouragement 
of his King, and always the hearty approval of the Virginians. 
In spite of the abusive epithets that have been heaped upon 
him, there is no reason why the slightest stigma should attach 
to his personal character. 

The Puritans, who played such an important part in the 
early history of Maryland and Virginia, seem not to have left 
any impression that can be directly attributed to them on the 
political institutions of either colony. In Virginia there was 
always a strong undercurrent of democracy, which cropped 
out more than once, notably in the insurrection under Harvey 
and in Bacon's rebellion nearly half a century later, but these 
popular movements cannot with any degree of confidence be 
attributed to Puritan influence. In matters of religion, on the 
other hand, we would naturally expect to find, in Maryland, 
at least, some survival of the influence of the Puritan settlers, 
but this nowhere appears. Their influence was probably in 
the course of time counteracted by the Catholics. 

In Virginia it was different. The Puritans who remained 
after the Restoration, although not radical enough to separate 
from the Established Church left, nevertheless, a profound 
impression upon that Church. If the Cavaliers outstripped 
them in numbers and political power, they certainly did not 
in spiritual force, for a spirit of moderate Puritanism con- 
tinued to dominate both the clergy and laity of the Episcopal 
Church and its influence has not yet been lost. Three quarters 
of a century after the Cavalier immigration Rev. Hugh Jones 
wrote : " In several respects the clergy are obliged to omit or 
alter some minute parts of the Liturgy, and deviate from 
the strict discipline and ceremonies of the church ; to avoid 
giving offence, through custom, or else to prevent absurdi- 



64 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [186 

ties and inconsistencies. Thus surplices, disused there for 
a long time in most churches, by bad examples, careless- 
ness and indulgence, are now beginning to be brought in 
fashion, not without difficulty; and in some parishes where 
the people have been used to receive the Communion in 
their seats (a custom introduced for opportunity for such as 
are inclined to Presbytery to receive the sacrament sitting) it 
is not an easy matter to bring them to the Lord's table decently 
upon their knees." 1 Green says that " the habit of receiving 
the Communion in a sitting posture had been common " in 
England, but was stopped by Laud, when he became Primate 
in 1633. 2 It is clear that this habit had been introduced into 
Virginia by the early Puritans; for Rev. Hugh Jones wrote 
before the Presbyterian immigration had made itself felt. 
His book was written in 1724 just after an attempt on the 
part of the Bishop of London to bring the Virginia Church 
under stricter discipline. 3 Surplices did not come into general 
use in Virginia until far into the present century and in some 
parishes not until within the last fifty years. The Virginia 
diocese has always claimed to be extremely low church and it 
still differs radically both in doctrine and ceremonial from 
most of the other dioceses of the same denomination. This 
conservatism, we claim, is a survival of the influence of the 
early Puritan settlers, enforced, no doubt, by the Huguenots, 
who came in later, a number of whose ministers occupied 
Episcopal parishes. 



1 Present State of Virginia, 69. 

2 Green, History of the English People, III, 159. 

3 Bishop Perry's Collection of MSS., 257, ff. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



The following is a list of the most important works consulted in the 
preparation of this paper. 

Anderson, J. S. M. History of the Colonial Church. 3 vols. London, 1856. 
Archives of Maryland. William Hand Browne, Editor. Baltimore. 
Bozman, John Leeds. History of Maryland. 2 vols. Baltimore, 1837. 
Burk, John Daly. History of Virginia. 4 vols. Petersburg, 1804-16. 
Browne, William Hand. History of Maryland ( American Commonwealths) . 
Byrd, Colonel William. History of the Dividing Line (Westover MSS., 

Vol. I). Kichmond, 1866. 
Calamy, Edmund. Nonconformists' Memorial. 3 vols. London, 1802. 
Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574-1660. W. Noel Sainsbury, 

Editor. 

Calvert Papers. Fund Publication, No. 28. Maryland Historical Society. 
Campbell, Charles. History of Virginia. Philadelphia, 1860. 
Chalmers, George. Political Annals. London, 1780. 
De Jarnette Papers. State Library, Richmond, Va. 

Hazard, Ebenezer. Collection of State Papers. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1792. 
Hening, W. W. Statutes at Large of Virginia. Richmond, 1809-1823. 
Jones, Rev. Hugh. Present State of Virginia (Sabin Reprints). New 
York, 1865. 

London Company, Records of the (Collingwood MS.). Library of Congress, 
Washington. 

Maryland Historical Society. Fund Publications. Baltimore. 
Massachusetts Historical Society Collections. Boston. 
McDonald Papers. State Library, Richmond, Va. 

Mather, Rev. Cotton. Magnalia Christi Americana. 2 vols. Hartford, 
1855. 

Meade, Bishop William. Old Churches and Families of Virginia. 2 vols. 

Philadelphia, 1857. 
Neill, Rev. Edward D. The English Colonization of America. London, 

1871. 

The History of the Virginia Company of London. Albany, 1869. 

Virginia Vetusta. Albany, 1885. 

5 65 



66 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. [188 



Neill, Rev. Edward D. Virginia Carolorum. Albany, 1886. 
Purchas, Samuel. His Pilgrimes. London, 1625. 

Perry, William Stevens, Bishop of Iowa. Historical Collections relating 
to the American Colonial Church, Vol. I, Virginia. Hartford, 1870. 

Randolph, MSS. 3 vols. Vols. 1 and 2, Records of the London Company ; 
Vol. 3, Miscellaneous. Library of the Virginia Historical Society, 
Richmond. 

Robinson MSS. Miscellaneous. Library of the Virginia Historical Society, 
Richmond. 

Sainsbury, W. Noel. Abstracts of Papers relating to Virginia in the Brit- 
ish State Paper Office. State Library, Richmond, Virginia. 

Smith, Captain John. General History, (reprint). Richmond, 1819. 

Slith, William. History of Virginia (Sabin Reprints). New York, 1865. 

Streeter, S. F. Papers relating to the Early History of Maryland, Fund 
Publication No. 9, Maryland Historical Society. Baltimore, 1876. 

Thurloe, John. Collections of State Papers, edited by Thomas Birch. 
7 vols. London, 1742. 

Virginia Historical Society Collections. 

Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Philip A. Bruce, Editor. 

Richmond, Virginia. 
Winthrop, Governor John. History of New England. Edited by James 

Savage. Boston, 1853. 



IS HISTORY PAST POLITICS? 1 

By Herbert B. Adams. 



There have been frequent criticisms of Mr. Freeman's 
famous definition, " History is Past Politics, and Politics are 
Present History." The phrase occurs in varying forms in 
Mr. Freeman's writings, 2 and was adopted as a motto for the 
Johns Hopkins University Studies in the year 1882, soon 
after the historian's visit 3 to Baltimore. The motto was 
printed not only upon the title page of our published Studies, 
but also upon the wall of our old Historical Seminary. Mr. 
Freeman kindly wrote for us an Introduction to American 
Institutional History and, by his long-continued correspond- 
ence, gave great encouragement to our work. 

Ten years after his visit to Baltimore, Mr. Freeman con- 
tributed to The Forum a review of his opinions, saying at the 
close of his article : " It is that chance proverb of mine which 
the historical students of Johns Hopkins have honored me by 
setting up over their library, it is by the application which I 
have made of it both to the events of the remotest times and 
to the events which I have seen happen in the course of sixty- 



1 A paper read in Baltimore, November 30, 1894, at the Sixth Annual 
Meeting of the Association of Colleges and Preparatory Schools in the 
Middle States and Maryland. 

a For references, see Johns Hopkins University Studies, Vol. I, 12. 

3 For an account of this visit, see Studies, Vol. I, 5-12. 

189 67 



68 



Is History Past Politics? 



[190 



nine years, that I would fain have my life and my writings 
judged." These were probably the last words addressed to 
American Jreaders by the historian of Sicily, who died at Ali- 
cante, in Spain, March 16, 1892, one month before the appear- 
ance of his last magazine article. 

A brief review of Mr. Freeman's Philosophy of History will 
serve to set our chosen motto in a clear light. He regarded 
Greek politics as the beginning of the world's state life. For 
him the Achaian League of Greek cities was the historic fore- 
runner of the Federal Union of these United States. For him 
the real life of ancient history lay " not in its separation from 
the affairs of our own time, but in its close connection with 
them." (Office of the Historical Professor, 41.) For him the 
records of Athenian archons and Roman consuls were essential 
parts of the same living European history as the records of 
Venetian doges and English kings. It mattered little to this 
large-hearted, broad-minded historian of Comparative Politics 
whether he was writing of free Hellas or free England, of 
Magna Graecia or the United States. He wrote political 
articles on the Eastern Question and the Danube provinces 
for the Manchester Guardian or Saturday Review in the same 
spirit in which he wrote historical essays. 

Mr. Freeman strongly believed that the main current of 
human history runs through the channel of politics. In the 
first published course of his lectures at Oxford, 1884-85, on 
"Methods of Historical Study," p. 119, he maintained that 
history is "the science or knowledge of man in his political 
character." He regarded the State as the all-comprehending 
form of human society. He used the word " political " in a 
large Greek sense. For him the Politeia or the Common- 
wealth embraced all the highest interests of man. He did not 
neglect the subjects of. art and literature. Indeed, he began 
his original historical work with a study of Wells Cathedral 
in his own county, and throughout his busy life he never lost 
interest in architectural and archaeological studies. For him 
Roman art and the Palace of Diocletian were but illustrations 



191] 



Is History Past Politic $ 



69 



of Roman life and character. Civilized man lives and moves 
and has his being in civil society. Cathedrals, palaces, colleges, 
and universities are simply institutions within the State, owing 
their security and legal existence to State authority. 

Mr. Freeman regarded present politics as history in the 
making. The struggles and conflicts of the present are the 
results of historic forces. When great problems are settled by 
war, legislation or diplomacy, the facts are accepted and are 
added to the great volume of human history. Freeman carried 
this view so far that he said : " The last recorded event in the 
newspapers is, indeed, part of the history of the world. It 
may be and it should be studied in a truly historic spirit." 1 

Such was the comprehensive philosophy of the great Eng- 
lish master of history and politics. It has made a profound 
if not a permanent impress upon the minds of many young 
Americans. It has entered into their consciousness and into 
their studies of institutional history. The motto which we 
have chosen for our published monographs and^for our Semi- 
nary wall is a good working theory for students engaged in 
the investigation of laws and institutions of government. No 
representative of the Johns Hopkins University, however, 
ever maintained that all history was past politics, but only 



1 Professor Jesse Macy, in his paper read before the American Historical 
Association at Chicago in 1893, on the Relation of History to Politics, said: 
"No other original source of history can be compared in importance with 
present politics." (See Annual Report for 1893, p. 185.) 

At the time of the American Civil War, Charles Kingsley, then professor 
of history at Cambridge, said : " I cannot see how I can be a Professor of 
past Modern History without the most careful study of the history which is 
enacting itself around me." Accordingly he proceeded to lecture on Ameri- 
can History. Mr. Freeman had the same historical impulse, but he pre- 
ferred to begin his treatment of Federal Government with the Achaian 
League. He evidently intended to include the American Union in his 
system of "Past Politics," for, upon his title-page, he mentioned "the Dis- 
ruption of the United States" as the final limit of his work ; and he always 
insisted that Secession was Disruption. The Union was badly broken, but it 
was finally mended and preserved, and is still engaged in politics. 



70 



Is History Past Politics f 



[192 



that some history is past politics, and the kind of history that 
we investigate is chiefly of that order. It is not out of place 
to observe, with Mr. Freeman's biographer, William Hunt, 
that "politics are the chief determining forces in a nation's 
life, in that they control and direct the production and appli- 
cation of wealth, the habits, aspirations, and to a large extent, 
the religion of a people, and that they are, therefore, the foun- 
dation of all sound history." (From the Proceedings of the 
Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society, Vol. 
xxxvin : 13.) 

While politics and laws are the foundation of the upper 
strata of history, and while history itself is the deep and eter- 
nal substratum of politics, it is well to remember that there 
are some things in the world which are neither politics nor 
history. For example, individual and domestic life is neither 
historical nor political, unless in some important way it affects 
the common life of society. 1 Here lies the true distinction 
between biography and history. Froude and Carlyle were 
champions of the biographical idea in history-writing. In 
his Inaugural Address at Oxford, Froude said that the func- 
tion of the historian is to discover and make visible illustrious 
men and pay them ungrudging honor. He strongly approved 
of Carlyle's saying : " The history of mankind is the history 



1 Paul Lindau, in the Public Ledger (Philadelphia), November 28, 1894, 
calls attention to the interesting sociological fact that the Bismarckian 
household exhibited a type of patriarchal family life, curiously surviving 
in this nineteenth century. In this case domestic life becomes of historic 
interest. The influence of the late Princess Bismarck was indirectly and 
unconsciously political because of her relation to the Iron Chancellor in the 
days of his activity. Lindau says, " She warmed the home with the sunny 
simplicity of her nature, and when storms were raging wildly without, she 
afforded her wearied and sorely tried husband a comfortable corner wherein 
to forget the excitements and trouble of the day and to take innocent plea- 
sure in life amid the home circle, and to collect his strength for renewed 
efforts. In this way the Princess played indirectly a part in politics that 
was not unimportant, although she never sought to make her strong per- 
sonal influence felt in political questions." 



193] 



Is History Past Politics? 



71 



of its great men ; to find out these, clean the dirt from them, 
and place them on their proper pedestals, is the true function 
of the historian." Carlyle thought history the essence of in- 
numerable biographies, but it may be urged that all biogra- 
phies since the world began would not constitute history, un- 
less they recognize the all-uniting element of civil society and 
of the common life of men in connection with human institu- 
tions. No biography is of the least historical importance un- 
less it treats man in his social or civic relations. This Greek 
idea of man as a political being, of man existing in an organ- 
ized community or commonwealth, is absolutely essential to a 
proper conception of history. Indeed, we may go further and 
say with Gold win Smith : " There can be no philosophy of 
history until we realize the unity of the human race and that 
history must be studied as a whole." (Lecture on History, 
p. 46.) This is very different from Froude's doctrines that 
" what is true of a part is true of the whole " and that " His- 
tory is the record of individual action," both of which state- 
ments are manifestly untrue. 

Without ignoring the heroes of Froude and Carlyle, or the 
obscure annals of American local history, we of the Johns 
Hopkins University realize that the world is round and are 
inclined to go even further up the stream of Past Politics than 
did our friend and patron, Mr. Freeman. We are unwilling 
to begin our course of historical study with old Greece or 
Aryan Europe. We seek the origin of more ancient cities 
than Athens and Sparta. We wish to know the laws and 
customs of the earliest races of men. We are disposed to recog- 
nize primitive man and society as worthy of a place in the 
study of rudimentary institutions. The village community, the 
patriarchal tribe, the first communal families, are all worthy 
of historical attention. Indeed, we are not averse to the dis- 
covery of institutional germs, like marriage and government 
and economy, even in the animal world. We are accustomed 
to say that history begins with the stone axe and ends with the 
newspaper. We believe that the beginning and end of history 



72 



Is History Past Politics? 



[194 



is man in society. As Colonel William Preston Johnston well 
said in his paper published by the American Historical Asso- 
ciation (1893, p. 47) : " Man is the first postulate of history. 
He is the beginning and the end of it. He enacts it; he tells 
it ; he accepts it as a message or gospel for guidance and self- 
realization. Man, mind, phenomena, memory, narrative — and 
history is born." Man in the State, Man as a Social Animal, 
Man living and moving in institutional groups, — this histori- 
cal conception, which is as old as Aristotle, we of the Johns 
Hopkins Historical Seminary regard as truly scientific and as 
practically modern. Its revival is due to the Renaissance of 
Greek and Roman politics in this nineteenth century. 

Let us now inquire from what historical source Freeman 
derived his notion that " History is Past Politics." The his- 
torian of the Norman Conquest received his inspiration from 
Dr. Thomas xlrnold, the father of modern studies in the schools 
and colleges of England. The Headmaster of Rugby not only 
revolutionized the public school life of our mother country in 
educational and moral ways, but he carried his Greek ideas of 
history into the University of Oxford, from which they have 
gone forth through England and America in one of those great 
intellectual movements so characteristic of modern university 
influence. 

In his Inaugural Lecture at Oxford in 1884, on the Office 
of the Historical Professor, pp. 8-9, Mr. Freeman said : " Of 
Arnold I learned what history is and how it should be studied. 
It is with a special thrill of feeling that I remember that the 
chair which I hold is his chair, that I venture to hope that my 
work in that chair may be in some sort, at whatever distance, 
to go on waging a strife which he began to wage. It was from 
him that I learned a lesson, to set forth which, in season and 
out of season, I have taken as the true work of my life. It 
was from Arnold that I first learned the truth which ought to 
be the centre and life of all our historic studies, the truth of 
the Unity of History. If I am sent hither for any special 
object, it is, I hold, to proclaim that truth, but to proclaim 



195] 



Is History Past Politics? 



73 



it, not as my own thought, but as the thought of my great 
master." 

From Arnold, more than from any other teacher or writer, 
Freeman learned that history is a moral lesson. In this strong 
conviction Freeman, in one respect at least, stands upon com- 
mon ground with Froude, who said of history : " It is a voice 
forever sounding across the centuries the laws of right and 
wrong. . . . Justice and truth alone endure and live. In- 
justice and falsehood may be long-lived, but doomsday comes 
at last to them, in French revolutions and other terrible 
ways." In death the two great historians of England are 
now united. Their ethical views of human history are essen- 
tially the same. Freeman said of the historian of Rome, one 
of his predecessors at Oxford : " In every page of his story, 
Arnold stands forth as the righteous judge, who, untaught by 
the more scientific historical philosophy of later days, still 
looked on crime as no less black because it was successful, 
and who could acknowledge the right even of the weak 
against the strong." Throughout his entire career as a publi- 
cist and as an historian, Freeman was the champion of liberty 
against oppression, of down-trodden Christian nationalities 
against the unspeakable Turk. 

It was from Thomas Arnold that Freeman learned the great 
lesson that the history of Greece and Rome is really nearer 
to the modern world than are many chapters of mediaeval 
history. In his lectures at Oxford, p. 62, Arnold had said 
" what is miscalled ancient history " is " the really modern 
history of the civilization of Greece and Rome." He main- 
tained that the student finds, upon classic ground, " a view of 
our own society, only somewhat simplified," like an intro- 
ductory study. (Lectures on Modern History, p. 220.) Arnold 
looked on old Greece as the springtime of the world, and upon 
Rome as the full political development of classical ideas of 
state life. The world is still moving along the imperial lines 
laid down in Church and State by the eternal city. Freeman 
regarded Rome as the source of all modern politics, the great 



74 



Is History Past Politics ? 



[196 



lake from which all streams flow. In his Inaugural Lecture 
at Oxford, p. 10, Freeman said : " Arnold was the man who 
taught that the political history of the world should be read 
as a single whole. . . . That what, in his own words, is 
' falsely called ancient history/ is, in truth, the most truly 
modern, the most truly living, the most rich in practical les- 
sons for every succeeding age." 

Dr. Arnold conceived of ancient history as living on in 
present society. Modern history has preserved the elements 
of earlier civilizations and have added to them. (See Lectures 
on Modern History, 46.) For Arnold, past politics were 
embryonic forms which, in modern society, have reached their 
maturity. His idea of historical politics resembles Dr. Wm. 
T. Harris' idea of education, which, for every well-trained 
scholar, should repeat the intellectual experience of his prede- 
cessors, including the Greeks and Romans, whose culture en- 
dures in our so-called liberal arts or fair humanities. Dr. 
Arnold once said that he wished we could have a history of 
present civilization written backwards. This kind of histori- 
cal knowledge would certainly be welcome to practical states- 
men and contemporary sociologists. 

It was undoubtedly from Arnold that Freeman derived his 
conception of history as past politics. Arnold was thoroughly 
imbued with the old Greek idea of the State as an organic 
unity. He defined history " not simply as the biography of a 
society, but as the biography of a political society or common- 
wealth." (Lectures, 28.) For him the proper subject of his- 
tory is the common life of men, which finds its natural expres- 
sion in government and civic order. He once said that the 
history of a nation's internal life is u the history of its institu- 
tions and of its laws." Under this latter term the Greeks 
included what we call institutions. The Republic and the 
Laws of Plato and Cicero represent the classical beginnings 
of modern political science. 

Thomas Arnold, the editor of Thucydides and the historian 
of Rome, was largely influenced by his classical studies, but 



197] 



Is History Past Politics f 



75 



his own historical work was determined by the views of Bar- 
thold George Niebuhr, 1 who may be called the real founder 
of the modern science of institutional history. Niebuhr laid 
little stress upon individual characters and individual action in 
Roman history, but great emphasis upon Roman laws, insti- 
tutions, and public economy. He found significance in Roman 
farming and land tenure as well as in Roman conquest. He 
was one of the first among modern scholars to recognize the 
importance of the historic state and its constitutional develop- 
ment. He lived in the period following the French Revolu- 
tion, before which time men had endeavored to construct his- 
tory from their own imaginations and to reconstruct society 
upon preconceived principles or so-called philosophy. Niebuhr 
based his treatment of Roman history upon actual research 
and careful criticism. He too had a moral conception of the 
historian's task and endeavored to bring all the lessons of old 
Roman courage, fortitude, energy, perseverance, and manliness 
to bear upon the education and regeneration of Prussia and 
New Germany. The foundation of the historico-political 
school was laid by Niebuhr, Eichhorn, Savigny, Baron vom 
Stein, George Pertz, and Gervinus during the period of Ger- 
manic reconstruction in Europe after the downfall of Napo- 
leon. 



1 Arnold in a letter to Chevalier Bunsen, thus expresses his profound 
indebtedness to Niebuhr for pioneer labors and critical suggestions in the 
field of Boman history : " I need not tell you how entirely I have fed upon 
Niebuhr ; in fact I have done little more than put his first volume into a 
shape more fit for general, or at least for English readers, assuming his con- 
clusions as proved, where he was obliged to give the proof in detail. 1 sup- 
pose he must have shared so much of human infirmity as to have fallen 
sometimes into error ; but I confess that I do not yet know a single point 
on which I have ventured to differ from him ; and my respect for him so 
increases the more I study him, that I am likely to grow even superstitious 
in my veneration, and to be afraid of expressing my dissent even if I believe 
him to be wrong. . . . Though I deeply feel my own want of knowledge, 
yet I know of no one in England who can help me ; so little are we on a 
level with you in Germany in our attention to such points." (See Stanley's* 
Life and Correspondence of Thomas Arnold, p. 269.) 



76 



Is History Past Politics f 



[198 



The whole modern school of German and English histo- 
rians was influenced by the critical and institutional methods 
of Niebuhr. In Germany, Otfried Muller applied Niebuhr's 
principles to the study of Dorian tribes and Hellenic states. 
Boeckh turned his attention to the public economy of Athens. 
Curtius, the greatest living historian of old Greece, recognizes 
his debt to Niebuhr. Ranke, the greatest of all historians, 
whether ancient or modern, spoke thus warmly of Niebuhr's 
example : " The greatest influence upon my historical studies 
was exerted by Niebuhr' s Roman history. It afforded a power- 
ful stimulus in my own investigations in ancient history, and 
it was the first German historical work which produced a pro- 
found impression upon me." (" Aus Leopold von Ranke's 
Lebenserinnerungen," Deutsche Rundschau, April, 1887, p. 
60.) Ranke extended to modern and universal history the 
principles of historical criticism which he had learned from 
Niebuhr' s Rome. 

The subject of Ranke's Inaugural Lecture at the Univer- 
sity of Berlin in 1836 was "The Relation and the Difference 
between History and Politics." He clearly recognized that 
the continuity of history appears pre-eminently in States. One 
generation of men succeeds another, but States and institutions 
live. He cited the example of Venice, whose State life endured 
uninterruptedly from the decline of the Roman empire to the 
time of Napoleon. He recognized that nothing historic really 
perishes from the earth. Old institutions are merged into 
higher and more perfect forms. A new life appears, with a 
new series of historical phenomena. He too saw the intimate 
relations between past politics and present history. He said : 
" A knowledge of the past is imperfect without a knowledge 
of the present. We cannot understand the present without a 
knowledge of earlier times. The past and the present join 
hands. Neither can exist or be perfect without the other." 
(Ranke : Abhandlungen und Versuche, p. 289.) 
. Ranke believed in the unity and the universality of history 
as strongly as did Freeman himself. " History is in its very 



199] 



7s History Past Politics f 



77 



nature universal," said Ranke. His friends say that he never 
wrote anything but universal history. He treated individual 
countries, Germany, France, and England, not as isolated 
nations, but as illustrations of world-historic ideas of religion, 
freedom, law, and government, expressed or realized by indi- 
vidual European States. For Ranke as for Abelard, that 
master mind of the Middle Ages, the universal could be dis- 
cerned in the particular. Even local 1 history may be treated 
as a part of general history. Ranke's first book, on the His- 
tory of Latin and Teutonic Peoples, was really a contribution 
to universal history. The last work of his life, on " Welt- 
geschichte," was begun at the age of ninety, and was but a 
natural supplement and philosophical rounding-out of all that 
he had done before. There is, therefore, a perfect unity be- 
tween the beginning and end of his life-long task. 

Ranke saw in history the resurrection and the immortality 
of the past. He regarded it as the historian's duty to revive 
and reconstruct past ages or past events from apparently dead 
records. In this pious labor he found the greatest joy. He 
once said : " He needs no pity who busies himself with these 
apparently dry studies, and renounces for their sake the plea- 
sure of many joyful days. These are dead papers, it is true ; 
but they are memorials of a life which slowly rises again before 
the mind's eye." Ranke is the best type of the truly scientific 
historian, for his principle was to tell things exactly as they 
occurred. He held strictly to the facts in the case. He did 
not attempt to preach a sermon, or point a moral, or adorn a 
tale, but simply to tell the truth as he understood it. He did 
not believe it the historian's duty to point out divine provi- 
dence in human history, as Chevalier Bunsen endeavored to 
do ; still less did Ranke proclaim with Schiller that the his- 
tory of the world is the last judgment, " Die Weltgeschichte 
ist das Weltgericht." Without presuming to be a moral cen- 



1 A good illustration of this fact may be seen in Howell's study of Lex- 
ington in his " Three Villages." 



78 



7s History Past Politics f 



[200 



sor, Ranke endeavored to bring historic truth in all its purity 
before the eyes of the world and to avoid such false coloring 
as Sir Walter Scott and writers of the romantic school had 
given to the past. 

The conception of history as politics survives in Germany 
as it does, and will do, in England and America. William 
Maurenbrecher, in his Inaugural Address on History and 
Politics at the University of Leipzig in 1884, maintained that 
history relates more especially to politics, to men and peoples 
in civic life. While recognizing that there are other fields of 
historical inquiry beside the State, such as religion and the 
church, art and science, he urged that history proper is politi- 
cal history, which he calls the very flower of historical study. 
Without law and order and good government, there can be no 
art or science or culture within a given commonwealth. All 
the finer forces of society live and move within the limits of 
civil society. The bands which unite history and politics can- 
not be broken. History reaches its goal in politics and poli- 
tics are always the resultant of history. The two subjects are 
related like our own past and present. The living man pre- 
serves in memory and his own constitution all that has goue 
before. No tendency in politics can be called good which does 
not take into account the historical development of a given 
people. Whoever will understand the political situation of 
any State must study its past history. 

These are the views of one of the best modern academic 
leaders of German youth, of a man now dead, but his spirit 
lives in his pupils. Gustav Droysen is also dead, but his 
principles of historical science, translated into English by 
President Andrews, of Brown University, have become a 
Vade Mecum of American teachers. Droysen has perhaps the 
highest of all conceptions of history, for he calls it the self- 
consciousness of humanity, the Know Thyself of the living, 
advancing age. But he too recognizes that History is Past 
Politics, for he says, "What is Politics to-day becomes His- 
tory to-morrow." 



201] 



Is History Past Politics t 



79 



N iebuhr's ideas of political history were transmitted to Eng- 
land through Arnold, Freeman, Gold win Smith, and J. R. 
Seeley, 1 all of whom hold to the view that History is Past 
Politics. Niebuhr's ideas of institutional history were eagerly 
caught up by that enthusiastic lover of liberty, Francis Lie- 
ber, who, returning penniless from his private expedition to 
Greece in the time of her Revolution, lived for a time as a 
tutor in Niebuhr's family at Rome. By Niebuhr's advice he 
emigrated from reactionary Prussia, first to England and then 
to America. The ripened fruit of Niebuhr's teaching may 
be seen in Lieber's writings on Civil Liberty and Political 
Ethics. Lieber's ideas of liberty were widely removed from 
the fantastic, philosophical dreams of the eighteenth century, 
and are based upon an historical study of English self-govern- 
ment. For him civil liberty meant institutional liberty. 

Francis Lieber represents the first beginnings of the historico- 
political school in American colleges and universities, where 
he always maintained that history and politics belong together. 
In South Carolina College he taught both of these subjects, 
together with Say's Political Economy. In his plan for the 
reorganization of Columbia College in New York City, he 
recommended the intimate association of historical, political, 
and economic subjects. When he was called to Columbia 
College from Columbia, South Carolina, in 1857, the follow- 
ing branches of the tree of knowledge were assigned to the 
new professor : Modern History, Political Science, Interna- 



1 Professor J. R. Seeley, in his " Expansion of England," pp. 1, 166, thus 
states his practical and political views of history : 

" It is a favorite maxim of mine, that history, while it should be scientific 
in its method, should pursue a practical object. That is, it should not only 
gratify the reader's curiosity, but modify his view of the present and his 
forecast of the future. 

" Politics and History are only different aspects of the same study. . . . 
Politics are vulgar when they are not liberalised by history ; and history 
fades into mere literature when it loses sight of its relation to practical 
politics." 



80 



Is History Past Politics ? 



[202 



tional Law, Civil Law, and Common Law. This was about 
as comprehensive a scheme of instruction as that projected in 
the University of Michigania in 1817, when a Scotch Presby- 
terian Minister, John Monteith, was given six professorships, 
in addition to the presidency, and when Gabriel Richard, the 
Roman Catholic Bishop of Michigan Territory, was allowed 
the six remaining chairs in the faculty ! But Francis Lieber 
was right in his large conception of a new school of History, 
Politics and Law as a desirable unit in academic administra- 
tion. Modern Columbia, under the influence first of Professor 
John W. Burgess, and now of President Low, has discovered 
the ways and means of developing a great School of Political 
Science, in which Economics, History, and Sociology find their 
proper place, all in perfect harmony with the interests of a 
special faculty of Law. 

In the reorganization of the departments of History, Politics 
and Economics at Cornell, Harvard, Michigan, and Wisconsin 
Universities, these subjects have been intimately associated. 
At the Johns Hopkins University, from the beginning in 1876, 
they have never been divided. They are still harmoniously 
grouped together, both on the graduate and undergraduate 
sides of instruction, for greater educational efficiency and for 
department unity. History, politics and economics, — these, 
together with historical jurisprudence, form the chief elements 
of our system of graduate study in the three years' course for 
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. We shall doubtless retain 
our motto, " History is Past Politics and Politics are Present 
History," as a convenient symbol of the essential unity of all 
political and historical science, and as a pleasant souvenir of 
Mr. Freeman. 

In the attempts of college and university men to deal with 
present problems of political, social, and educational science, 
we must all stand together upon the firm ground of historical 
experience. Mere theories and speculations are unprofitable, 
whether in the domain of pedagogics, sociology, finance, or 
governmental reform. In the improvement of the existing 



203] 



Is History Past Politics f 



81 



social order, what the world needs is historical enlightenment 
and political and social progress along existing institutional 
lines. We must preserve the continuity of our past life in the 
State, which will doubtless grow like knowledge from more 
to more. 

Frederic Harrison, in an essay maintaining that " The 
Present is ruled by the Past," well says : " The first want of 
our time is the spread amongst the intelligent body of our 
people of solid materials to form political and social opinion. 
To stimulate an interest in history seems to me the only means 
of giving a fresh meaning to popular education, and a higher 
intelligence to popular opinion." He asks us what is this 
unseen power, this everlasting force, which controls society ? 
" It is the past. It is the accumulated wills and works of all 
mankind around us and before us. It is civilization. It is 
the power which to understand is strength, to repudiate which 
is weakness. Let us not think that there can be any real pro- 
gress made which is not based on a sound knowledge of the 

living institutions and the active wants of mankind 

Nothing but a thorough knowledge of the social system, based 
upon a regular study of its growth, can give us the power we 
require to affect it. For this end we need one thing above 
all — we need history, hence its pre-eminent worth in social 
education." 



THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS 

OF BALTIMORE. 



I. American Journal of Mathematics. S. Newcomb and T. Craig, Editors. 
Quarterly. 4to. Volume XVII in progress. $5 per volume. 

II. American Chemical Journal. I. Eemsen, Editor. 8 nos. yearly. 8vo. 
Volume XVII in progress. $4 per volume. 

III. American Journal of Philology. B. L. Gildersleeve, Editor. 
Quarterly. 8vo. Volume XVI in progress. $3 per volume. 

IV. Studies from the Biological Laboratory. H. K Martin, Editor, 
and W. K. Brooks, Associate Editor. 8vo. Vol. V complete. $5 per 
volume. 

V. Studies in History and Politics. H. 5>. Adams, Editor. Monthly. 8vo. 
Vol. XIII in progress ; $3 per volume. Thirteen extra volumes of this series 
are also ready. 

VI. Johns Hopkins University Circulars. 4to. Monthly. Volume XIV 
in progress. $1 per year. 

VII. Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin. 4to. Monthly. Volume VI in 
progress. $1 per year. 

VIII. Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports. 4to. Volume V in progress. $5 
per volume. 

IX. Contributions to Assyriology, etc. Volume III in progress. 

X. Memoirs from the Biological Laboratory. W. K. Brooks, Editor. 
Volume II complete. $7.50 per volume. 

XI. Annual Report of the Johns Hopkins University. Presented by the 
President to the Board of Trustees. 

XII. Annual Register of the Johns Hopkins University. Giving the list 
of officers and students, and stating the regulations, etc. 



Rowland's Photograph of the Normal Solar Spectrum. Ten plates. $20. 
Description of the Johns Hopkins Hospital. J. S. Billings, Editor. 116 

pp., 56 plates. 4to. Cloth, $7.50. 
The Teaching of the Apostles (complete facsimile edition). J. Rendel 

Harris, Editor. 110 pp. and 10 plates. 4to. Cloth, $5.00. 
Reproduction in Phototype of a Syriac MS. with the Antilegomena 

Epistles. I. H. Hall, Editor. Cloth, $4.00. 
The Constitution of Japan. 48 pp. 16mo. 50 cents. 

The Oyster. By William K. Brooks. 240 pp., 12 plates. 12mo. Cloth, $1. 
Essays and Studies. By B. L. Gildersleeve. 520 pp. 4to. Cloth, $3.50. 
Studies in Logic. By members of the Johns Hopkins University. C. S. 

Peirce, Editor. 123 pp. 12mo. Cloth, $2.00. 
Geological and Topographical Maps of Baltimore and Vicinity. $1.00 

each. 

Essays in the Constitutional History of the United States. J. Franklin 

Jameson, Editor. Cloth, $2.25. 
The Genus Salpa. By W. K. Brooks. 396 pp. 4to. 57 plates. $7.50. 
Geology and Physical Features of Maryland. By G. H. Williams and 

W.B.Clark. $1.00. 
A New Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. 

Edited by Professor Paul Haupt. Prospectus on application. 



A full list of publications will be sent on application. 
Business communications should be addressed to The Johns Hop- 
kins Press. 



MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES 



J± J^OZDsTTSZLYY" PTJBLIGATIOIT 

With intermission from July to October inclusive. 

DEVOTED TO THE INTERESTS 

OF THE 

ACADEMIC STUDY OF ENGLISH, GERMAN, 

AND THE 

ROMANCE LANGUAGES. 



A. Marshall Elliott, Managing Editor. 
James W. Bright, H. C. G. von Jagemann, Henry Alfred Todd, 
Associate Editors. 



This is a successful and widely-known periodical, managed by a corps of professors and 
instructors in the Johns Hopkins University, with the co-operation of many of the leading 
college professo:s, in the department of modern languages, throughout the country. While 
undertaking to maintain a high critical and scientific standard, the new journal will endeavor 
to engage the interest and meet the wants of the entire class of serious and progressive modern- 
language teachers, of whatever grade. Since its establishment in January, 1886, the journal has 
been repeatedly enlarged, and has met with constantly increasing encouragement and success. 
The wide range of its articles, original, critical, literary and pedagogical, by a number of the 
foremost American (and European) schoiars, has well represented and recorded the recent pro- 
gress of modern language studies, both at home and abroad. 

The list of contributors to Modern Language Notes, in addition to the Editors, includes the 
following names : 

Anderson, Melville B., State University of Iowa; Bancroft, T. Whiting, Brown Univer- 
sity, R. I. ; Baskervill, W. M., Vanderbilt University, Tenn. ; BoCher, Ferdinand. Harvard 
University, Mass. ; Bradley, C. B , University of California, Cal ; Brandt, H. C. G., Hamilton 
College, N. Y. ; Browne, Wm. Hand, Johns Hopkins University, Md. ; Burnham, Wm. H., Johns 
Hopkins University, Md. ; Carpenter, Wm. H., Columbia College, N. Y. ; Cledat, L., Faculte 
des Lettres, Lyons, France; <ohn, Adolphe, Harvard University, Mass.; Cook, A. S., Yale 
University; Cosijn, P. J., University of Leyden, Holland, Crane, T. F., Cornell Univer- 
sity, N. Y. ; Davidson, Thomas, Orange, N. J.; Egge, Albert E, St. Olaf's College, Minn.; 
Fay, E. A., National Deaf-Mute College, Washington, D. C; Fortier, Alcee, Tulane Uni- 
versity, La.; Garner, Samuel, U. S. Naval Academy; Gerber, A., Earlham College, Ind.; 
Grandgent, Charles, Harvard University, Mass.; Gummeke, F. B., The Swain Free School, 
Mass.; Hart, J. M., University of Cincinnati, Ohio: Hempl, Geo., University of Michigan; 
Huss, H. C. O., Princeton College, N. J.; von Jagemann, H. C. G., Harvard University; 
Karsten, Gustaf, University of Indiana, Ind. ; Lang, Henry R., The Swain Free School, 
Mass ; Learned, M. D., Johns Hopkins University, Md.; Leyh, Edw. F., Baltimore, Md. ; 
Lodeman, A , State Normal School, Mich. ; Morfill, W. R., Oxford, England ; McCabe, 
T., Johns Hopkins University, Md.; McElroy, John G. R., University of Pennsylvania, Pa.; 
0'< onnor, B. F., Columbia College, N. Y. ; Primer, Sylvester, Providence, R. I. ; Schele De 
Vere, M., University of Virginia, Va. ; Schilling, Hugo, Wittenberg College, Ohio ; Sheldon, 
Edw. S., Harvard University, Mass.; Shepherd, H. E., College of Charleston, S. C. ; Schmidt, 
H. University of Deseret, Salt Lake City, Utah; Sikveks, £.duard, University of Tubingen, 
Germany ; Smyth, A. H., High School of Philadelphia, Pa. ; Stoddard, Francis H , University 
of City of New York ; Sturzinger, J. J., Bryn Mawr College, Pa. ; Thomas, Calvin, University 
of Michigan, Mich. ; Walter, E. L., University of Michigan, Mich. ; Warren, F. M., Johns 
Hopkins University, Md. ; White, H. S., Cornell University, N. Y. 

Subscription Price One Dollar and Fifty Cents Per Annum, 

Payable in Advance. 

Foreign Countries $1.75 per annum. 
Single Copies Twenty Cents. 

Specimen pages sent on application. 
Subscriptions, advertisements and all business communications should be addressed to the 
Managing Editor of Modern Language Notes, 

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 



The American Journal of Archeology 

AND OF THE 

HISTORY OF THE FINE ARTS. 



The American Journal of Archaeology is the organ of the Archaeological Institute of 
America. It contains original articles by archaeologists of established reputation both in Europe 
and America, also the Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Corres- 
pondence, Book Reviews, and News of excavations and discoveries in all countries. 

CONTENTS OF VOL. IX, No. 2, APEIL-JUNE, 1894. 

A. L. Frothingham, Sr. — The Philosophy of Art. 

N. E. Crosby. — A Basrelief from Phaleron. 

Allan Marquand. — A Terracotta Sketch by Lorenzo Ghiberti. 

N. E. Crosby. — The Topography of Sparta and the Building of Epimenides. 

A. L. Frothingham, Jr. — A primitive dome with pendentives at Vetulonia. 

Book Reviews. 

Archaeological News. 

CONTENTS OF VOL. IX, No. 3, JULY-SEPT., 1894. 

Charles Waldsteln.— A Metope head from the Argive Heraeum, 

J. R. Wheeler. — Inscriptions from the Argive Heraeum. 

R. B. Richardson. — Stamped tiles from the Argive Heraeum. 

W. H. Ward.— Some Hittite Seals. 

Alfred Emerson. — Heinrich Brunn. 

R. B. Richardson.— G. Lolling. 

Book Reviews. 

Archaeological News. 



Published Quarterly. Annual Subscription, $5.00. 



Address for Literary Communications 

A. L, FROTHINGHAM, Jr. 

For Business Communications 

ALLAN MARQUAND. 
Princeton, New Jersey. 



PUBLICATIONS 

OF THE 

American Economic Association. 



A series of monographs including fifty-four numbers and covering a great variety 
of economic and social questions, treated scientifically by leading thinkers along 
these lines. Six numbers are published each year. Annual membership $3.00. 
Discount of 20 per cent, allowed to members on back publications. The following 
are the most recent of the many valuable publications : 

VOLUME IX (1894). 

Nos. 1 and 2. Progressive Taxation in Theory and Practice. 

By Professor Edwin R. A. Seligman, of Columbia College. 
222 pages. Price $1.00. A special Cloth Bound Edition of 
this work has been published. Price $1.50. 

No. 3. The Theory of Transportation. By Charles H. Cooley, 
some time Chief of the Transportation Division, 11th Census. Price 
75 cents. 

No. 4. Sir William Petty : A Study in English Economic 
Literature. By Wilson Lloyd Bevan, Ph. D. 105 pages. 
Price 75 cents. 

Nos. 5 and 6. Papers on Labor read at the Seventh Annual 
Meeting. Price $1.00. 

VOLUME X (1895). 

Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The Canadian Banking System, 1 817-1890. 

By Roelipf Morton Breckenridge, Ph. D., some time Seligman 
Fellow in Economies at Columbia College. About 500 pages. 
Price $1.50. 



Full list of publications and other information furnished upon application. 
Address orders and inquiries to 

Secretary, 
American Economic Association, 
Ithaca, New York. 



* 



STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECOHQM1CS AND PUBLIC LAW. 

EDITED BY 

THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 
OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE. 



VOLUME I— Bound, $2.50; unbound, $2.00. 

I. The Divorce Problem : a Study in Statistics.* 

By Walter F. Willcox, Ph.D. — Price, 50 cents. 
II. History op Tariff Administration in the United 
States, from Colonial Times to the McKinley 
Administration Bill.* 

By John Dean Goss, Ph.D. — Price, 50 cents. 

III. History of Municipal Land Ownership on Manhat- 

tan Island.* 

By George Ashton Black, Ph.D. — Price, 50 cents. 

IV. Financial History of Massachusetts. 

By Charles H. J. Douglas, Ph.D.— Price, $1.00. 

VOLUME II.— Bound, $2.50; unbound, $2.00. 

I. The Economics of the Russian Village. 

By Isaac A. Hourwich, Ph.D.— Price, $1.00. 
II. Bankruptcy: A Study in Comparative Legislation. 

By Samuel W. Dunscomb, Jr., Ph.D. — Price, 75 cents. 

IH. Special Assessments : A Study in Municipal Finance.* 

By Victor Kose water. — Price, 75 cents. 

VOLUME III.— Bound, $2.50; unbound, $2.00. 

I. History of Elections in the American Colonies. 

By Courtlandt F. Bishop, Ph.D.— Price $1.50; bound, $2.00. 
II. The Commercial Policy of England toward the 
American Colonies. 

By George L. Beer, A.M.— Price, $1.00. 

VOLUME IV.— Bound, $2,50; unbound, $2.00. 

I. Financial History of Virginia, 

By W. Z. Ripley, Ph.D.— Price, 75 cents. 

II. The Inheritance Tax. 

By Max West, Ph.D. — Price, 75 cents. 

HI. History of Taxation in Vermont. 

By Frederick A. Wood, Ph.D. — Price, 75 cents. 

Other numbers will be announced hereafter. 
Numbers marked * are not sold separately. 



For further particulars apply to 

Prof. EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, 

Columbia College, 
or to MACMILLAN & CO., New York. 



NOTES SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE STUDIES. 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND. By Dr. Albert Shaw. 
SOCIAL WORK IN AUSTRALIA AND LONDON. By William Grey. 
ENCOURAGEMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION. By Professor Herbert B. Adams. 
THE PROBLEM OF CITY GOVERNMENT. By Hon. Seth Low. 
THE LIBRARIES OF BALTIMORE. By Dr. P. R. Uhler. 

WORK AMONG THE WORKING WOMEN IN BALTIMORE. By Professor H, 
B. Adams. 

CHARITIES: THE RELATION OF THE STATE, THE CITY, AND THE IN- 
DIVIDUAL TO MODERN PHILANTHROPIC WORK. By Dr. A. G. Warner. 
LAW AND HISTORY. By Dr. Walter B. Scaife. 

THE NEEDS OF SELF-SUPPORTING WOMEN. By Miss Clare de Graf- 

FENREID. 

THE ENOCH PRATT FREE LIBRARY. By Dr. Lewis H. Steiner. 

EARLY PRESS YTERIANISM IN MARYLAND. By Rev. J. W. MclLVAIN. 

THE EDUCATIONAL ASPECT OF THE U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM. By 

Professor O. T. Mason. 

UNIVERSITY EXTENSION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FUTURE. By 

Richard G. Moulton. 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION. By Dr. William T. Harris. 
POPULAR ELECTION OF U. S. SENATORS. By John Haynes. 
A MEMORIAL OF LUCIUS S. MERRIAM. By J. H. Hollander and others. 



ANNUAL SERIES, 1883-1893. 

SERIES I.— LOCAL INSTITUTIONS. 479 pp. $4.00. 
SERIES II.— INSTITUTIONS AND ECONOMICS. 629 pp. $4.00. 
SERIES III.— MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, AND WASHINGTON. 595pp. $4.00. 
SERIES IV.— MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AND LAND TENURE. 600 pp. $3.50. 
SERIES V.— MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, HISTORY AND POLITICS. 559 
pp. $3.50. 

SERIES VI.— THE HISTORY OF CO-OPERATION IN THE UNITED STATES. 

540 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES VII.— SOCIAL SCIENCE, MUNICIPAL AND FEDERAL GOVERN- 
MENT. 628 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES VIII.— HISTORY, POLITICS, AND EDUCATION. 625 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES IX.— EDUCATION, POLITICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. 640 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES X.— CHURCH AND STATE, COLUMBUS AND AMERICA. 630 pp. 
$3.50. 

SERIES XI. — LABOR, SLAVERY, AND SELF-GOVERNMENT. 574 pp. $3.50. 
SERIES XII.— INSTITUTIONAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY. $3.50. 

The set of twelve series is now offered, uniformly bound in cloth, for library use, for $36.00. The 
twelve series, with thirteen extra volumes, twenty-five volumes in cloth, for $55.00. 



All business communications should be addressed to The Johns Hop- 
kins Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Subscriptions will also be received, or 
single copies furnished by any of the following 



American Agents: 



New York. — G. P. Putnam's Sons. 
Boston.— Damrell & Uphani; W. B. Clarke 
& Co. 

Providence. — Preston & Rounds. 
Philadelphia. — Porter & Coates; J. B. Lip- 
pi ncott Co. 

Washington.— W. H. Lowderruilk & Co.; 
Brentano's. 



Cincinnati.— Robert Clarke Co. 
Indianapolis.— Bowen-Merrill Co. 
Chicago.— A. C. McClurg & Co. 
Louisville.— Flexner Brothers. 
New Orleans.— George F. Wharton. 
Toronto. — Carswell Co. (Limited). 
Montreal.— William Foster Brown & Co. 



European Agents: 



Paris. — A. Herman; Em. Terquem. 

Berlin. — Puttkammer & Miihlbrecht; Mayer 

& Miiller. 
Leipzig.— F. A. Brockhaus. 



London.— Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner & 

Co. ; G. P. Putnam's Sons. 
Turin, Florence and Rome.— E. Loescher. 



THE REPUBLIC OF NEW HAVEN. 

By CHAKLES H. LEVERMORE, Ph. D. 
{Extra Volume Ons of Studies in History and Politics.) 
342 pages. 8vo Cloth. $2.00. 

PHILADELPHIA, 1681-1887. 

By EDWARD P. ALLINSON, A. M., and BOIES PENROSE, A. B. 
(Extra Volume Two of Studies in History and Politics.) 
444 pages- 8vo. Cloth. $3.00. 

Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April, 1861. 

By GEORGE WILLIAM BROWN. 

Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore, and Mayor of the City in 1861. 
(Extra Volume Three of Studies in History and Politics.) 
176 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1,00. 



Local Constitutional History of the United States. 

By GEORGE E. HOWARD, 

Professor of History in the University of Nebraska. 

(Extra Volumes Four and Five of Studies in History and Politics.) 

Volume I.— Development of the Township, Hundred and Shire. 542 pp. 8vo. Cloth. 
$3.00. 

Volume II. — In preparation. 



THE NEGEO IN MARYLAND. 

By JEFFREY R. BRACKETT, Ph. D. 
(Extra Volume Six of Studies in History and Politics.) 
370 pages, 8vo. Cloth. $3.00. 



The Supreme Court of the United States. 

By W. W. WILLOUGHBY, Ph. D. 
(Extra Volume Seven of the Studies in History and Politics. ) 
134 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.35. 

The Intercourse Between the U. S. and Jaran. 

By INAZO (OTA) NITOBE, Ph. D. 
(Extra Volume Eight of the Studies in History and Politics.) 
198 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.35. 



STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SWITZERLAND. 

By JOHN MARTIN VINCENT, Ph. D., 

Librarian and Instructor in the Depwrtment of History and Politics, Johns Hopkins University. 

( Extra Vol. Nine of the Studies in History and Politics. ) 
225 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. 



Spanish Institutions of the Southwest. 

By FRANK W. BLACKMAR, Ph. D., 

Professor of History and Sociology in the Kansas State University. 
(Extra Vol. Ten of the Studies in History and Politics.) 
380 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. 



An Introduction to the Study of the Constitution 

By MORRIS M. COHN. 

(Extra Vol. Eleven of the Studies in History and Politics. ) 
250 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $ 1.50. 



THE OLD ENGLISH MANOR. 

By C. M. ANDREWS, Ph. D., 

Associate in History, Bryn Mawr College. 

(Extra Vol. Twelve of the Studies in History and Politics. ) 
280 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. 



America: Its Geographical History, 1492-1892. 

By WALTER B. SCAIFE, Ph. D. 

(Extra Vol. Thirteen of the Studies in History and Politics.) 
176 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. 



Florentine Life during the Renaissance. 

By WALTER B. SCAIFE, Ph. D. 

(Extra Vol. Fourteen of the Siudies in History and Politics.) 
256 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. 



The extra volumes are sold at reduced rates to regular subscribers to the 
"Studies." 



LB N '06 



VII-VIII-1X. History of the Land Question in the United States. By Shosuke Sato. 
81.00. 

X. The. Town and City Government of New Haven. By Charles H. Levermore. 
50 cents. 

XI-XII. The Land System of the New England Colonies. By Melville Egleston. 
50 cents. 

FIFTH SERIES. — Municipal Government, 
History and Politics.— 1887.— $3.50. 

I- II. City Government of Philadelphia. By Edward P. Allinson and Boies Penrose. 

50 cents. 

III. City Government of Boston. By James M. Bugbee. 25 cents. 

IV. City Government of St. Louis. By Marshall S. Snow. 25 cents. 
V-VI. Local Government in Canada. By John George Bourinot. 50 cents. 

VII. The Influence of the War of 1812 upon the Consolidation of the American Union. 
By Nicholas Murray Butler. 25 cents. 

VIII. Notes on the Literature of Charities. By Herbert B. Adams. 25 cents'. 

IX. The Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville. By James Bryce. 25 cents. 

X. The Study of History in England and Scotland. By P. Fredertcq. 25 cents. 
XI Seminary Libraries and University Extension. By H. B. Adams. 25 cents. 
XII. European Schools of History and Politics. By A. D. White. 25 cents. 

SIXTH SERIES.— The History of Co-operation in 
the United States.— 1888.— S3. 50, 

SEVENTH SERIES. — Social Science, Education and 
Government.— 1889.— $3.50. 

I. Arnold Toynbee. By F. C. Montague. With an account of the Work of Toynbee Hall 
in East London, by Philip Lyttelton Gell. 50 cents. 

II- III. The Establishment of Municipal Government in San Francisco. By Bernard 

Moses. 50 cents. 

IV. The City Government of New Orleans. By William W. Howe. 25 cents. 
V-VI. English Culture in Virginia. By William P. Trent. $1.00. 

VII-V1II-IX. The River Towns of Connecticut. Wethersfield, Hartford and Windsor. 
By Charles M. Andrews. $1.00. 

X- XI-XII. Federal Government in Canada By John G. Bourinot. $1.00. 

EIGHTH SERIES.— History, Politics and 
Education.— 1890.— $3.50. 

I-II. The Beginnings of American Nationality. By A. W. Small. $1.00. 

III. Local Government in Wisconsin. By D. E. Spencer. 25 cents. 

IV. Spanish Colonization in the Southwest. By F. W. Blackmar, 50 cents. 

V- VI. The Study of History in Germany and France. By P. Fredericq. $1.00. 

VI- VIII-IX. Progress of the Colored People of Maryland since the War. By Jeffrey 

E,. Buackett. $1.00. 

X. The Study of History in Belgium and Holland. By P. Fredericq. 50 cents. ■ 

XI- XII. Seminary Notes on Recent Historical Literature. By H. B. Adams, J. M. 

Vincent, W. B. Scaife, and others. 50 cents. 

NINTH SERIES.— Education, History. Politics, and 
Social Science.— 1891.— $3.50 

I-II. Government and Administration of the United States. By W. W. Willoughby 
and W. F. Willoughby. 75 cents. 

III- IV. — University Education in Maryland. By B. C. Steiner. The Johns Hopkins 

University (1876-1891). By D. C. Gilman. 50 cents. 

V-VI. Development of Municipal Unity in the Lombard Communes. By William 
K. Williams. 50 cents. 

VII- VIII. Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Roman Republic. By Andrew 

Stephenson. 75 cents. 

IX. Constitutional Development of Japan (1853-1881). By Toyokichi Iyenaga. 50 cents. 

X. A History of Liberia. By J. H. T. McPherson. 50 cents. 

XI-XII. The Character and Influence of the Indian Trade in Wisconsin. By Frederick 
Jackson Turner. 50 cents. 



TENTH SERIES.— Church and State: Columbus and 
America. — 1892. — $3.50. 

. The Bishop Hill Colony: A Religious Communistic Settlement in Henry County, 
Illinois. By Michael A. Mikkelsen. 50 cents. 

II- III. Church and State in New England. By Paul E. Lauer. 50 cents. 
IV. Church and State in Maryland. By George Petrie. 50 cents. 

V-VI. The Religious Development in the Province of North Carolina. By Stephen B. 

Weeks. 50 cents. 

VII. Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. By John W. Black. 50 cents. 

VIII- IX. The Quakers in Pennsylvania., By A. C. Applegarth. 75 cents. 

X XI. Columbus and his Discovery of America. By EL B. Adams and Henry Wood. 

50 cents. 

XII. Causes of the American Revolution. By J. A. Woodburn. 50 cents. 

ELEVENTH SERIES.— Labor, Slavery, and Self- 
Government.— 1 893. — $3.50. 

I. The Social Condition of Labor. By E. R. L. Gould. 50 cents. 

II. The World's Representative Assemblies of To-day. By Edmund K. Alden. 50 cents. 
IH-IV. The Negro in the District of Columbia. By Edward Ingle. $1.00. 

V-VI. Church and State in North Carolina. By Stephen B. Weeks. 50 cents. 

VII- VIII. The Condition of the Western Farmer as Illustrated by the Economic 

History of a Nebraska Township. By A. F. Bentley. $1.00. 

IX- X. History of Slavery in Connecticut. By Bernard C. Steiner. 75 cents. 
XI-XII. Local Government in the South and Southwest. By Edward W. Bemis and 

• others. $1.00. 

TWELFTH SERIES.— Institutional and Economic 
History.— 1894.— $3.50. 

I-II. The Cincinnati Southern Railway: A Study in Municipal Activity. By J. H. Hol- 
lander. With a Memorial of Dr. Lucius S. Merriam, late Fellow in Economics. By J. H. 
Hollander and others. $1.00. 

III. The Constitutional Beginnings of North Carolina (1663-1729). By J. S. Bassett. 

50 cents. 

IV. The Struggle of Protestant Dissenters for Religious Toleration in Virginia. By 

H. R. McIlwaine. 50 cents. 
V-VI-VII. The Carolina Pirates and Colonial Commerce (1670-1740). By S. C. Hugh- 
son. $1.00. 

VIII- IX. History of Representation and Suffrage in Massachusetts (1620-1691). By 
G H. Haynes. 50 cents. 

X. English Institutions and the American Indian. By J. A. James. 25 cents. 

XI-XII. The International Beginnings of the Congo Free State. By J. S. Reeves. 

5.0 cents. 

THIRTEENTH SERIES.— 1895.— Subscription, $3.00, 

I-II. Government of the Colony of South Carolina. By Edson L. Whitney. 15 cents. 

III- IV. Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia. By J. H. Latane. 50 cents. 
The Rise and Development of the Bicameral System in America. By Thomas F. Moran. 
Financial History of Baltimore, By J. H. Hollander. 

Social Condition of Textile Labor. By E. R. L. Gould. 
Jared Sparks and DeTocqueville. By Herbert B. Adams. 
Higher Popular Education in Baltimore. By Herbert B. Adams. 

The Genesis of California's First Constitution (1846-1849). By Rockwell Dennis Hunt. 
Puritanism in Virginia in the Seventeenth Century. By John H. Latane. 
White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia. By James C. Ballagh, 
The City Government of Baltimore. By Thaddeus P. Thomas. 
The Communists of Colonial Maryland. By Bartlett B. James. 
Contemporary American Opinion of the French Revolution. By Charles D. Hazen. 
Other papers will be from time to time announced. 

The set of twelve series is now offered, uniformly bound in cloth, for library use, for 
$36, and including subscription to the current (thirteenth) series, for $39 00, 
°The twelve series, with thirteen extra volumes, altogether twenty-five volumes, in 
cloth as above, for $55.00. 



All business communications should be addressed to THE JOHN HOPKINS PRESS, 
Baltimore, Maryland. 



I 



